A Church of Hope in The Light of The Eschatological Ecclesiology of Jürgen Moltmann

"A church of hope in the light of the
eschatological ecclesiology of Jürgen Moltmann"
Kim, Nam Van
ABSTRACT
La thèse cherche à décrire l'ecclésiologie de J. Moltmann, qui présente l'Église du Christ comme " une
Église de l'espérance "", à laquelle toutes les confessions chrétiennes sont appelées à prendre part. Mais
peut-on encore parler aujourd'hui d'espérance ? La question se pose en philosophie depuis cinquante ans
et, en théologie, depuis les années soixante. Cette interrogation est devenue récurrente, pour plusieurs
raisons. D'abord parce que, de par sa nature, l'être humain n'est jamais satisfait de ce qu'il possède: il
aspire toujours à autre chose. Ensuite, parce qu'avec le concile Vatican II, l'Église catholique a ouvert les
portes de l'espérance tant à ses membres qu'au reste du monde, suivie en cela par les communautés
protestantes à travers l'action du Conseil oecuménique des Églises. D'autre part, le développement des
dialogues interreligieux et oecuméniques est un signe d'espérance, pointant vers l'unité des chrétiens et
de l'humanité. On notera d'autre part, que les situations actuelles de violence et de guerre provoquent les
religions, l'humanité et chaque individu à agir pour la paix et l'unité. Dans ce contexte, la mondialisation,
favorisée par les développements médiatique, technologique et économique, stimulent les peuples à
construire un avenir meilleur. Enfin, la conscience de la dégradation de l'environnement incite à chercher
des solutions en vue d'assurer la survie de la création. Plus fondamentalement, si la personne humaine
se définit non seulement à partir de son passé, mais aussi en fonction de son aveni...
CITE THIS VERSION
Kim, Nam Van. A church of hope in the light of the eschatological ecclesiology of Jürgen Moltmann. Prom. :
Weber, Philippe http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/5397
Le dépôt institutionnel DIAL est destiné au dépôt DIAL is an institutional repository for the deposit
et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques and dissemination of scientific documents from
émanant des membres de l'UCLouvain. Toute UCLouvain members. Usage of this document
utilisation de ce document à des fins lucratives for profit or commercial purposes is stricly
ou commerciales est strictement interdite. prohibited. User agrees to respect copyright
L'utilisateur s'engage à respecter les droits about this document, mainly text integrity and
d'auteur liés à ce document, principalement le source mention. Full content of copyright policy
droit à l'intégrité de l'œuvre et le droit à la is available at Copyright policy
paternité. La politique complète de copyright est
disponible sur la page Copyright policy
Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/5397 [Downloaded 2021/10/08 at 10:04:59 ]

1
A Church of Hope
in the Light of the Eschatological Ecclesiology of Jürgen Moltmann
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 8
PART I. THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH ........................................................ 18

CHAPTER I. JESUS IS WHO ISRAEL EXPECTED ................................................. 18
1. IDENTITY OF JESUS ......................................................................................... 19
1.1. Who is Jesus?................................................................................................. 20
1.1.1. Speculative Christology .......................................................................... 20
1.1.2. The historical Jesus and christian kerugma ............................................ 21
1.1.3. God becomes man................................................................................... 23
1.2. Jesus Christ is the Messiah ............................................................................ 24
1.3. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God ................................................ 26
1.3.1. Jesus’ self-revelation............................................................................... 27
1.3.2. Christian affirmation............................................................................... 29
2. THE SUFFERING MESSIAH ............................................................................. 30
2.1. Jesus above the law: the blasphemer ............................................................. 31
2.2. Jesus rebels against authority......................................................................... 34
2.3. Jesus is forsaken by God................................................................................ 37
3. THE ESCHATOLOGICAL JESUS ..................................................................... 40
3.1. Jesus rises from the dead................................................................................ 42
3.1.1. God’s promise of resurrection ................................................................ 42
3.1.2. Jesus’ resurrection as a novum ultimum.................................................. 43
3.1.3. The recognition of the Lord resurrected ................................................. 44
3.1.4. Continuity in Jesus Christ’s history ........................................................ 46
3.2. The exalted Jesus Christ and his coming ....................................................... 47
3.2.1. The future of Jesus .................................................................................. 47
3.2.2. Parousia................................................................................................... 50
CHAPTER II. THE ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH ....................................................... 52
1. THE MESSIAH AND THE BEGINNING OF THE CHURCH .......................... 53
1.1. Jesus Christ, the foundation of the Church .................................................... 53
1.2. Jesus Christ, the founder of the Church ......................................................... 55
1.3. Jesus Christ, the author of faith...................................................................... 58
2. THE CROSS OF CHRIST IS THE SOURCE OF THE CHURCH ..................... 61
3. THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE FORMATION OF THE CHURCH.................. 64
CONCLUDING REMARKS OF PART I ................................................................ 65
PART II. THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST ............................................................... 68

CHAPTER I. THE MARKS OF THE CHURCH ........................................................ 69
2
1. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH......................................................................... 70

1.1.Trinitarian unity .............................................................................................. 71
1.2. Christological unity........................................................................................ 75
1.3. The means, signs and sources of the unity of the Church.............................. 76
1.3.1 The Eucharist ........................................................................................... 76
1.3.1.1. Baptism as condition for inter-communion ..................................... 77
1.3.1.2. Church unity as a condition for inter-communion........................... 78
1.3.1.3. Inter-communion as a means to church unity ................................. 81
1.3.1.4. Inter-communion as a sign to the world of the Church’s unity ....... 82
1.3.2.The hierarchical structure ........................................................................ 83
1.4. The ecumenical Church ................................................................................. 88
1.5. Unity in diversity ........................................................................................... 92
2. THE HOLY CHURCH ......................................................................................... 94
2.1. Holiness.......................................................................................................... 95
2.2. Jesus and the Holy Church............................................................................. 96
2.3. Setting apart ................................................................................................... 97
2.4. Reformata and reformanda ............................................................................ 98
2.5. Holiness in poverty ...................................................................................... 102
3. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.............................................................................. 104
3.1. Catholicity and unity.................................................................................... 105
3.2. Catholicity and universality ......................................................................... 107
3.3. Catholicity and orthodoxy............................................................................ 109
3.4. Catholicity and particularity ........................................................................ 109
3.5. Catholicity and the Church’s universal mission .......................................... 111
4. THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH ............................................................................ 115
4.1. Apostolic succession.................................................................................... 116
4.2. The elements of the apostolic succession .................................................... 117
4.3. The apostolic commission............................................................................ 120
4.4. Apostolicity and papal primacy ................................................................... 122
4.4.1. Papal primacy........................................................................................ 122
4.4.2. Papal infallibility................................................................................... 124
CONCLUDING REMARKS OF PART II, CHAPTER I ...................................... 125
CHAPTER II. THE CHURCH OF HOPE.................................................................. 127
1. THE SUBJECT OF CHRISTIAN HOPE ........................................................... 128
1.1. The philosophy and theology of hope in parallel......................................... 129
1.2. The theology of hope ................................................................................... 133
1.2.1. The context of the development of the theology of hope ..................... 133
1.2.2. Hope in Scripture .................................................................................. 135
1.2.2.1. Christian hope and the Old Testament........................................... 136
1.2.2.2. Christian hope and the New Testament ......................................... 139
1.2.3. Biblical hope ......................................................................................... 142
1.2.3.1. Human hope ................................................................................... 142
1.2.3.2. Christian hope ................................................................................ 144
1.2.3.3. Moltmann’s biblical hope .............................................................. 146
1.2.3.4. Hope and revelation ....................................................................... 147
1.2.4. The foundation and object of hope ....................................................... 149
3
1.3. Sins against hope.......................................................................................... 152

1.3.1. Despair and presumption ...................................................................... 152
1.3.2. Humble acquiescence in the present ..................................................... 154
1.3.2.1. Indifference towards the present.................................................... 155
1.3.2.2. Solely the present........................................................................... 156
1.4. The rapport between faith, hope and love.................................................... 158
1.4.1. The Prioritas and primatus of faith and hope....................................... 158
1.4.2. Love and ‘believing hope’ .................................................................... 160
2. THE OBJECTS OF HOPE IN MOLTMANN’S THEOLOGY ......................... 161
2.1. The hope in righteousness............................................................................ 162
2.1.1. The righteousness of God ..................................................................... 162
2.1.2. Justification of human beings ............................................................... 164
2.1.3. Justification by faith alone .................................................................... 166
2.1.3.1. Justification according to St. Peter and St. Paul ............................ 167
2.1.3.2. Man’s initiative and good works.................................................... 168
2.1.4. Righteousness and Jesus Christ ............................................................ 170
2.1.5. Justification and regeneration ............................................................... 172
2.1.6. Universal justification........................................................................... 174
2.1.7. Eschatological aspects of justification ................................................. 176
2.2. A new life of hope in anticipation of the resurrection ................................. 178
2.2.1. Hope in the resurrection....................................................................... 179
2.2.1.1. The credibility of God.................................................................... 179
2.2.1.2. The significance of Jesus Christ’s resurrection for men................ 182
2.2.1.2.1. The righteousness of God and the theodicy questions............ 182
2.2.1.2.2. Human being and his history .................................................. 183
2.2.1.2.3. Unity of humanity and all creations........................................ 184
2.2.1.2.4. Faith in the resurrection .......................................................... 185
2.2.1.3. The nature of the resurrection ........................................................ 186
2.2.2. A life anticipating the resurrection ....................................................... 189
2.2.2.1. A life of joy, peace and thanksgiving ............................................ 190
2.2.2.2. A witness to the life of the resurrection ......................................... 192
3. HOPE IN RELATIONSHIPS ............................................................................. 196
3.1. Hope for Israel ............................................................................................. 197
3.1.1. Israel’s special calling........................................................................... 198
3.1.2. Israel like all nations? ........................................................................... 200
3.1.3. Jews and gentiles................................................................................... 202
3.1.4. Israel and inter-religious (ecumenical) dialogue................................... 204
3.1.5. New appraisals of Israel........................................................................ 208
3.2. Hope for the world’s religions and nonreligious ......................................... 210
3.2.1. Theology of religions and inter-religious dialogue............................... 210
3.2.1.1. Appraisals of Non-Christians......................................................... 211
3.2.1.2. Absolutism or relativism? .............................................................. 212
3.2.2. Inter-religious dialogue......................................................................... 216
3.2.2.1. Methods of religious dialogue ....................................................... 217
3.2.2.1.1. Direct dialogue........................................................................ 218
3.2.2.1.2. Indirect dialogue ..................................................................... 218
4
3.2.2.2. Conditions for inter-religious dialogue.......................................... 219

3.2.2.3. Missio Dei...................................................................................... 221
3.2.2.4. Moltmann’s experience of religious dialogue................................ 223
3.2.2.5. Fruits of religious dialogue ............................................................ 224
3.3. Hope for human society ............................................................................... 226
3.3.1. Human rights......................................................................................... 226
3.3.1.1. The rights of individuals ................................................................ 227
3.3.1.2. The rights of humanity................................................................... 228
3.3.2. The unity of mankind............................................................................ 230
3.3.2.1. The community of the living and the dead .................................... 230
3.3.2.2. The community of generations ...................................................... 232
3.3.2.3. The Church and the unity of mankind ........................................... 234
3.3.3. The question of theodicy....................................................................... 235
3.3.3.1. The origin of suffering ................................................................... 236
3.3.3.2. Solutions to suffering..................................................................... 238
3.3.3.2.1. Philosophical and traditional theological propositions ........... 238
3.3.3.2.2. Scripture and the question of theodicy.................................... 238
3.3.3.2.3. Theodicy and hope.................................................................. 239
3.3.4. The Church and the suffering world ..................................................... 243
3.4. Hope for nature ............................................................................................ 246
3.4.1. The crisis of extermination ................................................................... 246
3.4.1.1. Nuclear crisis ................................................................................. 246
3.4.1.2. The ecological crisis ...................................................................... 248
3.4.2. The theology and philosophy of creation.............................................. 250
3.4.2.1. Creatio continua and creatio nova.................................................. 251
3.4.2.2. God’s immanence in creation: God’s house .................................. 253
3.4.2.3. Human beings in the world ............................................................ 256
3.4.2.4. The Sabbath of the earth ................................................................ 259
3.4.3. Cosmic Christology and hope in a cosmic world ................................. 261
3.4.4. New solutions for the ecological crisis ................................................. 263
3.4.5. Hope for nature and the Church............................................................ 266
CONCLUDING REMARKS OF PART II, CHAPTER II......................................... 268
PART III. THE CHURCH IN THE POWER OF THE SPIRIT..................................... 270

CHAPTER I. THE CHARISMATIC CHURCH ........................................................ 271
2. THE STUCTURE AND METHOD OF THE CHARISMATIC CHURCH ...... 272
1.1. Sending the Holy Spirit................................................................................ 273
1.1.1. Pneumatology and Trinitarian theology................................................ 273
1.1.2. The renewal of all living creatures and of the earth.............................. 276
1.2. Ministries in the Church............................................................................... 278
1.2.1. Foundation of ministries ....................................................................... 278
1.2.2. Ministries within the community .......................................................... 280
1.2.3. Variety of ministries in unity ................................................................ 282
1.3. Charismatic gifts .......................................................................................... 284
1.3.1. The vitality of the charismatic community ........................................... 285
1.3.2. Speaking in tongues .............................................................................. 287
1.3.3. Healing the sick..................................................................................... 287
5
1.3.4. Charismatic gifts and Christian daily life ............................................. 288

1.4. The Church of grassroots communities ....................................................... 289
1.4.1. Characteristics of grassroots communities............................................ 290
1.4.2. Grassroots communities in praxis......................................................... 291
1.4.3. Renewal of grassroots communities ..................................................... 293
1.5. The Church of fellowship ............................................................................ 294
1.5.1. Fellowship of the Holy Spirit................................................................ 296
1.5.1.1. Fellowship according to the Trinitarian concept ........................... 296
1.5.1.2. The Church in the fellowship of the Spirit..................................... 298
1.5.2. Congregation of the sects...................................................................... 301
1.5.3. Religious communities.......................................................................... 302
1.5.4. The Church’s fellowship for and with all people.................................. 303
1.5.4.1. Self-help groups inside the Church community............................. 304
1.5.4.2. Fellowship outside the Church community ................................... 304
2. THE CHURCH IN ITS MEDIATIONS OF SALVATION ............................... 306
2.1. The gospel.................................................................................................... 306
2.1.1. Proclaiming the gospel.......................................................................... 307
2.1.2. The gospel and the messianic era.......................................................... 308
2.2. Baptism ........................................................................................................ 310
2.2.1. The Christian meaning of baptism........................................................ 310
2.2.2. Protestant baptism theology.................................................................. 312
2.2.3. The fundamentals of baptismal theology.............................................. 315
2.2.4. Suggestions for baptismal practices...................................................... 317
2.3. The Lord’s Supper ....................................................................................... 318
2.3.1. Open invitation and open feast ............................................................. 318
2.3.2. The presence of Jesus Christ................................................................. 321
2.3.3. The sign of remembered hope and the banquet in the kingdom ........... 322
2.4. Worship........................................................................................................ 325
2.4.1. Worship as a messianic feast ................................................................ 325
2.4.2. The feast in history................................................................................ 327
2.4.3. The feast of Jesus Christ ....................................................................... 329
CHAPTER II. THE EXODUS CHURCH .................................................................. 330
1. POLITICAL THEOLOGY AND LIBERATION THEOLOGY........................ 331
1.1. Political religion........................................................................................... 331
1.2. Political theology ......................................................................................... 333
1.2.1. The background and nature of political theology ................................. 333
1.2.2. The praxis of political theology ............................................................ 335
1.2.2.1 The meaning and tasks of political theology .................................. 335
1.2.2.2. The relationship between the Church and the world ..................... 337
1.2.2.2.1. The Church’s self-critiques..................................................... 338
1.2.2.2.2. Church critiques of society ..................................................... 339
1.2.3. The Church in the process of political life............................................ 341
1.2.3.1. Christians in political life............................................................... 341
1.3.3.2. Preference for one political system................................................ 343
1.3. Liberation theology...................................................................................... 345
1.3.1. The background and nature of liberation theology ............................... 346
6
1.3.2. Theology of liberation and redemption................................................. 350

1.3.3. Praxis of liberation theology................................................................. 352
1.3.3.1. The fundamentals of praxis............................................................ 353
1.3.3.2. The objects of praxis...................................................................... 355
1.3.4. Liberation of the oppressors and the oppressed.................................... 357
1.3.4.1. Christ’s presence with and in the poor........................................... 358
1.3.4.2. Preferential options for the poor .................................................... 359
1.3.4.3. Liberation of the oppressed............................................................ 362
1.3.4.4. Liberation of the oppressors........................................................... 364
1.4. Feminist theology......................................................................................... 367
1.4.1. Moltmann and feminist theology .......................................................... 368
1.4.2. Origins of feminist theology ................................................................. 369
1.4.3. The nature of feminist theology............................................................ 370
1.4.3.1. Origins and practices of patriarchy ................................................ 370
1.4.3.2. Liberation from patriarchy............................................................. 372
1.4.3.4. The Church and patriarchy............................................................. 374
1.5. Minjung theology......................................................................................... 377
1.5.1. Jesus and the people (ochlos) in the New Testament ........................... 378
1.5.2. Liberation of the ochlos. ....................................................................... 380
2. THE CHURCH OF HOPE AND LIBERATION............................................... 382
2.1. A Church of Liberation................................................................................ 383
2.1.1. A liberated Church................................................................................ 383
2.1.2. Political and liberation theology under the cross.................................. 385
2.1.3. People of God ....................................................................................... 388
2.2. The Church helps liberate the unjust world ................................................. 389
3. THE CHURCH IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD ................................................. 392
3.1. The Trinitarian doctrine of the kingdom...................................................... 393
3.2. God’s lordship in the universal kingdom..................................................... 395
3.3. Anticipating the kingdom of God ................................................................ 399
3.3.1. Acts of anticipation ............................................................................... 399
3.3.2. Partial possession of the coming kingdom............................................ 401
3.4. Coming kingdom and the Church. ............................................................... 403
CONCLUDING REMARKS OF PART III ............................................................... 405
PART IV. AN ASSESSMENT OF MOLTMANN’S ECCLESIOLOGY ..................... 408

1. APPRAISALS ........................................................................................................ 408
1.1. Approaches ...................................................................................................... 409
1.2. The distinctiveness of Moltmann’s ecclesiology............................................. 411
1.2.1. Christo-centric ecclesiology...................................................................... 411
1.2.2. Eschatological ecclesiology ...................................................................... 412
1.2.3. Liberation ecclesiology............................................................................. 413
1.3. Positive achievements...................................................................................... 414
1.3.1. A participatory Church ............................................................................. 414
1.3.2. Liberation of the poor and the oppressors................................................. 415
1.3.3. Ecology ..................................................................................................... 417
1.3.4. Ecumenical and inter-religious dialogues................................................. 418
2. PROSPECTS .......................................................................................................... 420
7
2.1. Points requiring clarification or further development...................................... 420

2.1.1. Preferential options for the poor ............................................................... 420
2.1.2. Political preferences.................................................................................. 422
2.1.3. Lack of specifics ....................................................................................... 424
2.1.4. The Church and the world in the kingdom ............................................... 424
2.2. Problem areas................................................................................................... 426
2.2.1. Patripassianism ......................................................................................... 426
2.2.2. Open invitation to the Lord’s Table.......................................................... 429
2.2.3. The problem of overemphasizing Christo-centrism ................................. 429
3. EVOLUTION ......................................................................................................... 430
3.1. From Christological to Pneumatological perspectives .................................... 430
3.2. Ecological and liberation aspects..................................................................... 432
GENERAL CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 433
BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................... 436
I- Works by Jürgen Moltmann ........................................................................ 436
1. Books .............................................................................................................. 436
2. Articles and chapters....................................................................................... 438
3. Works co-authored by Jürgen Moltmann ....................................................... 447
II- Church official documents and patristic sources .................................. 448
1. Patristic sources .............................................................................................. 448
1. Church official documents.............................................................................. 449
III. Others .............................................................................................................. 450
INDEX OF AUTHORS .................................................................................................. 469

8
INTRODUCTION
In modern times, the theme of hope has blossomed; since the fifties in philosophy
and the sixties in theology. Is it still relevant to talk about hope today?
Since Vatican Council II, the Roman Catholic Church has had the intention of
practicing an ‘aggiornamento’; thus, it brings hope to its believers as well as to the whole
world. Since Vatican Council II, there has been not only renewal of the Church from
‘above’, but also from ‘below’, where there has been a movement of grassroots
communities in which the laity participate actively and directly in decision-making and
Church activities. On the side of the Protestant Churches, with the World Council of
Churches, hope for the unity of the Church, as well as for the world, emerges. Many
Churches have been engaged in the ecumenical dialogue forty years now, and some light
is shed on the prospect of Christian unity. Furthermore, today we have a new
consciousness of the presence of religious pluralism; thus the topic of interreligious
dialogue and ecumenical dialogue becomes extremely vital and stimulates the human
community, the Church and the world to be more optimistic.
Another motive for returning to the subject of hope is that we are in the third
millennium, which is expected to mark an important threshold of a new history of
mankind. Unfortunately, the new millennium is marked with destruction and fright
caused by terrorism and war; these experiences provide a further reason for humankind,
the Church and each individual to have hope. The awareness of the threat of ecological
conflicts also impels men to find a solution ensuring the survival of the world and human
community, which are living in the anxiety of insecurity. Also, we are in a rapidly
changing world with technology, instant communication and globalisation, etc. This fast
progress in development and improvement of living standards in the future enthuse men
and women to hope for a better world. The hope that human beings always have, projects
them towards a brighter future. Saying all this, at least eight motivations for hope, we can
conclude that the subject of hope is still a very exciting theme in theology today. Even for
those who feel hindered in the community of creatures and do not see a better life as an
answer to their hoping, yet they continue to hope.
9
In fact, in modern times, the human community has tried to make use of science
and technology in order to preserve life, but at the same time are also aware of the threat
to life that originates with human beings or natural disasters. Therefore, the subject of
hope is more urgent than ever in the consciousness of man. Jürgen Moltmann, a
forerunner to the theology of hope says: “In this global situation after the ‘century of
beginning’, and after the ‘century of the end’, is there rebirth of hope which holds for life,
all human beings and all the earth, and is not coupled with the threat of annihilation of
other people and other things.”1
The subject of hope, in the context of a new turn of history, however, cannot but
be based on the traditions of the philosophy and the theology of hope, which find their
foundations in human nature and human responses to historical situations; of course, the
theology of hope also finds its foundation in Scripture. The subject of hope is present not
only in society but also in the Church, because the Church lives in the world, on its
pilgrimage towards the coming kingdom. What can and must the Church offer to the
world in terms of hope? The answer is that the Church first of all has to be a Church of
hope.
The topic ‘A Church of Hope’ of this research has the purpose of discovering an
ecclesiology proposed by Jürgen Moltmann,2 which, receiving its driving force from the
theology of hope,3 offers a model for a reformed Church. Therefore, this study will trace
1
J. MOLTMANN, “Resurrection: The Ground, Power and Goal of our Hope” in Concilium 1999/5, p. 81-89,
at 81; cf. “Hope and the Biomedical Future of Man” in E. H. COUSINS (ed.), Hope and the Future of man,
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972, p. 89-105.
2
Moltmann was born in Germany in 1926 and drafted into the army in 1944. In 1945, he was captured by
British forces in Belgium and was imprisoned in Scotland and retained in war camp in England until 1948,
where he remained under forced labour. He then studied theology in Göttingen, where he met his wife
Elizabeth Wendel. While studying at Göttingen, Moltmann came under the influence of K. Barth who
belonged to the recently formed confederation of the Confessing Church, that wanted to abolish the
subordination of the Church to the State (cuius regio, eius religio) and confessed to the sole lordship of
Christ. Under this influence, Moltmann later developed his ecclesiology in the affirmation that the Church
is a Church under only the lordship of Christ. After finishing his doctoral degree at Göttingen, he became
pastor at Bremen (1952-1958). He then went to teach at Göttingen (1957-1958), at Wuppertal (1958-1963),
at Bonn (1963-1967). Since 1967, he is professor of systematic theology at Tübingen where he maintained
a close relationship with Ernst Bloch who wrote the three volume philosophy The Principle of Hope (cf. J.
MOLTMANN, The Open Church, London: SCM Press, 1978, p. 96-97, trans. by M. D. Meeks from the
German Neuer Lebenstil. Schritte zur Gemeinde, Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1977; R. T. CORNELISON,
“The Development and Influence of Moltman’s Theology”, in The Asbury Theological Journal 55, 2000, p.
15-28, at 16-19).
3
J. MOLTMANN, Theology of Hope, London: SCM Press, 1967, trans. by J. W. Leitch from the German
Theologie der Hoffnung, Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1965. The other two books The Crucified God and
10
the particular philosophy and theology of hope of the second half of the twentieth
century.
Moltmann is the founder of a theology of hope which adopts the eschatological
character of Ernst Bloch’s philosophy.1 Bloch, disagreeing with the traditional method of
analyzing history that departs from past, finds impulses from the future for his philosophy
of hope. In his theology of hope, Moltmann, following the method of Bloch’s philosophy,
starts from the future, seeing its influence on the present. Man always has consciousness
of the future, contributing to the form of his present life. Thus, past and present are
conditioned by the future. In the same direction, according to Moltmann, the Church is
eschatological; i.e. it has hope in the future, in the coming kingdom and the coming Jesus
Christ. The Church, in hoping in the future, lives its life in view of its own future and the
world’s; looking forwards to the future, it lives in present in the memory of the past.2
Moltmann presents an ecclesiology that offers hope to the Church and the world.
However, the Church can offer hope to its members and the world only if it reforms
itself. In 1972, in publishing his book on ecclesiology, The Church in the Power of the
Spirit, he wanted to present a model for Church renewal, which, according to him, is still
current and exigent today.3
In the sixties, we witnessed the spirit of Vatican Council II, calling for the
renewal of the Church. This self-reflection of the Catholic Church probably inspired
other denominational Churches as well as theologians of all facets to recognize the
necessity of a reformation of the local as well as the universal Churches. Following this
trend, in the seventies, Moltmann, with his personal experiences of his own nationally
denominational Church, as well as his extensive experiences with inter-denominational
Churches on the international level, advocated a reformation for the Church of Christ.
Other than the theological motive, i.e., including the role of the Holy Spirit in his
The Church in the Power of the Holy Spirit together with Theology of Hope form Moltmann’s Trilogy: The
Crucified God, London: SCM Press, 2001 (first ed. 1974), trans. by R.A. Wilson and J. Bowden from the
German Der gekreuzigte Gott, Munich: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1973; The Church in the Power of the
Holy Spirit, London: SCM Press, Second ed. 1992 (First ed. 1977), trans. by M. Kohl from the German
Kirche in der Kraft des Geistes, Munich: Kaiser Verlag, 1975.
1
E. BLOCH, The Principle of Hope, 3 vols, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1996, trans. by N.
Plaice, S. Plaice and P. Knight from the German Das Prinzip Hoffnung, 3 vols, Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp Verlag, 1959.
2
Cf. R. T. CORNELISON, ‘The Development and Influence of Moltmann’s Theology’, p. 19.
3
Moltmann acknowledged this when his wrote the Postscript in 1989.
11
theology of hope, which previously already comprised the role of the Father and the Son,
there was another reason for his writing the third of this important trilogy, ‘The Church in
the Power of the Spirit’, which involves Moltmann’s witness to a crisis in the German
Church, which wanted to take charge of the society while becoming more and more
secularized.
In other words, the Church seemed to deviate, although not completely, from its
essence and vocation. Therefore, Moltmann saw the necessity of the Church’s reforming
both its structure and policies. According to him, the Church needs to rediscover its
unique foundation, Jesus Christ, and learn to rely on the Holy Spirit again. Only with this
return, will the Church be able to fulfill its vocation as the spouse of Jesus Christ and the
light of the world.1 The Church will be a Church of hope, ecumenism, charism, mission
and politics. Thus the Church should be a participatory Church of community, which
invites each and every Christian to live his or her faith actively.2 From the time of
Vatican II and the publication of Moltman’s ecclesiolosical book, we have witnessed a
progress in the reformation of the Church.
In reality, although Moltmann is very ecumenical in that he also studies the
ecclesiology of the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian Churches, his
ecclesiology reflects particularly a reformed-protestant viewpoint, which does not
necessarily represent the ecclesiology of the universal Church of Christ. Keeping this in
mind, the goal of this research is to expose the Protestant ecclesiological theology of
Moltmann in comparison with that of the Catholic, in view of producing an ecumenical
ecclesiology of hope. What can the Reformed and Presbyterian Churches, as well as the
Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran and other Christian Churches learn from
ecclesiology according to Moltmann? The ecumenical dialogue can draw many positive
aspects from this research.
Some people say that Moltmans’s ecclesiology is too progressive, others judge it
too conservative; both are right, because he discusses both the conservative and
progressive elements with both progressive and conservatives forms. In this sense, we
should expect a dynamic ecclesiology from Moltmann. Indeed, his view of the Church
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 5-6.
2
Cf. H. GOUDINEAU, J.-L. SOULETIE, Jürgen Moltmann, Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2002, p.31-32.
12
draws greatly both from the faith and forms of the primitive Church communities and
from his own parish, under his pastorship, as well as from his personal experiences of
witnessing the lives of the Churches on other continents, thanks to his extensive travels
and international conferences.1
The title “A Church of Hope” involves a double connotation. First of all, the
Church should be a hope for the world. This does not mean that the Church is the sole
source of hope for the world because the world can find hope in different institutions and
religions. With this awareness, the Church needs to cooperate with others if it wants to
bring and provide hope to the world and renew itself and the world. The world changes in
every period; therefore, it is important to review the present Church’s theology and
activities.
Moltmann’s ecclesiology is both theological and pastoral. The process which
Moltmann applies in his ecclesiology consists of pointing away from the traditionally
pastoral Church with its mission of caring for its members, towards a participatory
Church centred on the fellowship and ownership of the people; turning away from the
Church for the people and turning towards a Church of the people. Secondly, the Church
is a Church of Hope only because it receives its source of hope in Jesus Christ. Jesus
Christ is the hope of the Church, and the Church cannot find hope in any other place but
in Jesus Christ.
I divide this thesis into four parts:
Part One discusses the foundation of the Church, which is Jesus Christ.
According to Moltmann, the Church has to be a Church of Christ; and, beginning with
this premise, the subsistence of the Church and all that it does find their sources and goals
in Jesus Christ. Indeed, Jesus Christ is all for the Church to the extent that “without
Christ, no Church; there is only a Church if and as long as Jesus of Nazareth is believed
and acknowledged as the Christ of God.”2
The ecclesiology of Moltmann is conspicuously a messianic ecclesiology, which
“is shorthand for a christologically founded and eschatologically directed doctrine of the
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. XIII.
2
Ibid., p. 66.
13
Church.”1 It is rooted in eschatological Christology, i.e., it points to “the universal future

of Christ, the messianic kingdom.”2 The Church is not for itself, but for Jesus Christ who
is its source of life and mission in view of the coming kingdom. If the death and
resurrection of Jesus is not his total accomplishment, but the future is also essential to
him, the Church also has to point to the whole person of Jesus Christ: past, present, and
coming, and to his coming kingdom, the messianic kingdom. In other words, because
“the Christ who is the foundation of the Church is the eschatological person whose past
history has yet to be fulfilled in his future. So his Church must be a messianic fellowship
oriented in mission towards the coming of God.”3
This is an innovative aspect in Moltmann’s ecclesiology. In fact, if traditional
ecclesiology often emphasizes Jesus Christ in his death and resurrection as the foundation
of the Church, Moltmann considers the whole history of Jesus Christ, which includes his
coming. In this context, the Church, in anticipating the coming of Jesus Christ,4 which is
a future event, exists and fulfills its mission in view of the coming of a Kingdom that will
also only acquire its consummation in the future. In other words, the future is an
important element in Moltmann’s ecclesiology, while traditional ecclesiology accentuates
the past and present.
But who is Jesus Christ? Is his relationship with his Father in terms of his
suffering for the world an essential element in the Church and the world of today? Does
Jesus actually found the Church? These are some of the questions discussed in Part One.
Once the Church sees itself as the Church of Christ, Christ must be the starting
point for studying the Church’s nature and its relationship with others and with the
history of God’s dealings with the world.
Part Two deals with essence and nature of the Church of hope. The structure,
hierarchy and reformation of the Church are among the themes touching the heart of the
Church. The four marks of the Church: one, holy, catholic and apostolic, are studied in
their full and thorough implication, as well as related to other topics concerning man:
suffering, salvation, justification, resurrection; the Church’s relation with the world,
1
R. BAUCKHAM, The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995, p. 122.
2
Ibid., p. 123.
3
Ibidem.
4
The meaning of the term ‘the coming Jesus Christ’ will be explained later.
14
nations and Israel; the ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue. The theme of ecology is
an innovative aspect in Moltmann’s ecclesiology, which many Christians and theologians
ignore, but is the most imperative to the Church of hope and vital to the survival of the
world and a humanity living in hope.
The ecclesiology of Moltmann has prompted controversies because it calls for a
reform of the life and structure of the Church, which would not respect the traditional
position of the Church hierarchy. However, it also draws many praises for its openness to
the future of God, of mankind, of nature, of Israel, of world religions, and of history.
Moltmann looks at the Church beginning not only from its past historical foundation,
which is considered unchangeable, but also from its future, which is oriented toward
openness and becoming. According to him, the essence of the Church is its nature of self-
transformation. If the Church is fixed and remains status quo, it is not the true Church of
Christ. In this sense, the undetermined and eschatological oriented future of the Church is
part of its essence. The fact of the Church’s incorporating its past, present, and future is
founded on the fact of Christ’s incorporating his past and present history as well as his
coming.
Part Three regards the Church’s mission. The Church, in the messianic era, is
under the guidance of the Spirit, whose mission relates to that of the Son. According to
Moltmann, the crucified and glorified Jesus is the foundation of the Church and its reason
for hope, and the driving force for its mission as it is active in the present and open to the
future. The Church’s mission has to be in relation with that of the Trinity in the world.
The Church is only one of many movements of the Trinitarian history of God’s dealing
with the world. Therefore, it has to co-operate with other religions and movements in
fulfilling its mission. In this sense, the ecclesiology of Moltmann is relational
ecclesiology insofar as it is open to the Trinity’s relationship with the world and to others.
In doing so, the Church practices reformation by criticizing both its own actions and the
society.
Moltmann describes the Church’s mission as the charismatic Church and the
exodus Church. By ‘charismatic Church’, he means a Church renewed for its own
members, in which all Christians can offer the charismatic gifts they receive from the
15
Holy Spirit. By ‘exodus Church’, he means the Church’s fulfilling its mission in the
world on its pilgrimage towards the kingdom.
An internal renewal of the Church, which brings about the Church charismatic,
begins with its self-evaluation. Moltmann’s ecclesiology discusses the Church as a
participatory community that gathers to participate in the sacraments and the Word. The
Church needs to renew itself both from above and from below; from above the Church
reexamines the needs of the people and finds the most effective methods of meeting their
needs; from below, all members of the Church, particularly the laity, who form the
grassroots communities, are encouraged to contribute their gifts freely and participate in
the decision-making process of the Church. The reformed community of the Church
renews the practices of ministry and fellowship.
As an exodus Church, it lives in the world and for the world; it cannot but get
involved in the affair of the world; it has to renew the world and give it hope. According
to Moltmann, the nature of the Church’s mission is political. The Church turns the hope
in Jesus into action. Solidarity and fraternity are forces for the liberation of the world.
Moltmann emphasizes the mission of liberation of the Church; around the theme of
liberation, other themes are also discussed: political religion, political theology, Minjung
theology and feminist theology, etc.
The Church hopes in Jesus Christ; however, this cannot rest idle but must
translate into action. The actions of the Church serve not only present purposes, here and
now, but also look to the future. The Church lives in the kingdom of God already present
but not yet fulfilled. It is called to be open for God, for mankind and for the future of God
and humanity. Hope in the crucified and glorified Jesus motivates the Church to follow
his footsteps by practicing its mission. If Jesus is the foundation for the hope of the
Church, the Church has to be the hope for the world. J. Moltmann indicates that at this
time the Church needs to fulfill its mission of liberating the world. With its eschatological
characteristics, the Church lives in the midst of the world, serves and changes the world,
and prepares the world for the coming of the kingdom of God by liberating the world
from suppression and suffering and proclaiming the Good News. The Church
accomplishes its mission, hoping in the future of the kingdom of God, a hope founded
upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This mission of the Church is exigent, present, and
16
consists of many aspects. It changes and adapts to every concrete situation and always
has a vision for the future.
Part Four assesses Moltmann’s ecclesiology, comprising the following aspects:
the distinctiveness of his ecclesiology, positive achievements, points requiring further
development, problem areas, and the evolution of Moltmann’s ecclesiology.
It is useful to keep the following points in mind:
1) With regard to some expressions Moltmann employs, I should note that there is
a distinction between ‘human/man’, ‘other living creatures’ and ‘nature’. Although
human beings and animals are parts of nature, Moltmann specifically wants to include in
nature, forests, mountains, earth, etc., as the community of creatures. This is an important
aspect in Moltmann’s ecclesiology; it transforms our traditional understanding. In fact,
we are used to understanding that because, other than human beings and other living
creatures, the rest of nature does not have sensibility, we eliminate the possibility of the
existence of a community between human beings, animals and the rest of nature. But for
Moltmann, all creatures form one community.
Moltmann uses the term ‘world’ normally in order to denote creatures altogether,
but sometimes it can also mean ‘only the human community’. In this research, it is not
hard to detect the meaning of the term ‘world’, depending on the context.
In general, Moltmann employs the expression ‘Church’ to connote the ‘ideal
Church’, i.e. the Church of Jesus Christ; this Church can include the Roman Catholic
Church, the Anglican Church, the Orthodox Church, the Lutheran Church, the Reformed
Church or any other Christian Church, if they conform to the Church of Christ.
Otherwise, the expressions of particular Churches, such as the Orthodox, Roman
Catholic, or Reformed Church, etc. are specified in order to distinguish their particular
characteristics.
2) Although there have been differences and conflicts between the conservative
Protestant Wolfhart Pannenberg and J. Moltmann, as Moltmann admits,1 I also see many
convergences between these two theologians, particularly in the aspects of ecumenism,
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, God for a Secular Society, London: SCM Press, 1999, p. 57, trans by M. Kohl from
the German Gott im Projekt der modernen Welt. Beiträge zur öffentlichen Relevanz der Theologie,
Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser/Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 1997; see also R. J. BAUCKHAM, Moltmann Messianic
Theology in the Making, Basingstoke: Marshall Pickering, 1987, p. 5.
17
and of hope for humanity and nature. Therefore, references to Pannenberg are numerous.
Furthermore, because Moltmann’s ecclesiology is very comprehensive, relative and
inclusive, it should be expected to relate to other theologies, such as dialectical theology,
liberal theology, political theology and liberation theology, etc. In this sense, we will
make ready reference to other great theologians, such as M. Luther, R. Bultmann, K
Barth, H. Küng, K. Rahner, J. B. Metz, Y. Congar and G. Gutiérrez, etc.
In order to best understand this thesis, one needs to be open to new perspectives.
Someone fastened to the past will not be open to the future, indispensable in Moltmann’s
eschatological ecclesiology of hope. Let’s hope that we are able to respond to this
expectation.
18
PART I. THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH

Since the ecclesiology of Moltmann is eschatologically founded in Christology,
we find, in his primary book on ecclesiology “The Church in the Power of the Spirit”,
two fundamental statements regarding the foundation and origin of the Church: “without
Christ, no Church” and “there is only a Church if and as long as Jesus of Nazareth is
believed and acknowledged as the Christ of God.”1
The point that Moltmann wants to make with these statements is the inseparable
relation between Christology and ecclesiology. There is a “reciprocal relationship
between knowledge of Christ and acknowledgment of the Church […]. The doctrine of
the Church, therefore, where it concerns the foundation of the Church and the conditions
in which it exists, is indissolubly connected with the doctrine of Jesus, the Christ of
God.”2 To understand this, when discussing the foundation of the Church, we need to
know the nature of Jesus Christ, and also how the Church understands its relationship
with him. Chapter I of part I will explore the identity of Jesus as the Messiah whom the
chosen Israel had been waiting for as well as how the Church recognizes and believes in
Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ of God. Chapter II of part I will treat the subject of the
role of Jesus as well as of the Holy Spirit in the formation and beginning of the Church.
CHAPTER I. JESUS IS WHO ISRAEL EXPECTED

Christians have a general idea that Jesus “somehow founded Christianity”3;
however, when discussing the foundation of the Church, theologians often raise specific
questions: How does the Church recognize Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ of God? Are
the preacher Jesus and the preached Christ the same? Where can people find truth, in the
historical Jesus of Nazareth or in the post-Easter Jesus Christ? It is of utmost importance
to raise and answer these questions because the Church’s existence and mission depend
on whether it understands correctly the person of Jesus and his teachings. If the Church is
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 66.
2
Ibidem.
3
Cf. ibid., p.70.
19
able to answer these questions concerning the person of Jesus and his history, it can then
recognize the role of Jesus in its foundation.1 Who is Jesus and what is his relationship to
others?
1. IDENTITY OF JESUS
Although many who met Jesus, could recall his extraordinary teachings and
deeds, they felt that he did not meet their expectations, particularly that his death on the
cross was contrary to the idea of a “Messiah”. They knew that he was crucified on the
cross either because of his failed rebellion against authority or due to his blasphemies
against the Mosaic Law. For them, the cross of Christ was a stumbling block and
foolishness (cf. I Cor. 1: 22-23). On the contrary, other people, namely the disciples and
the newly converted, whether Jews, Greeks or Romans, considered Jesus Christ as the
source of their life. Thus they gathered together to worship him, and the reason for their
gathering was because they recognized him as the Christ of God and believed in him,
despite (or because of) his death on the cross.
The primitive Church proclaimed the risen Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah and
the Son of God. To understand these Christological titles given to Jesus, Moltmann
considers them from two points of view: that of intention and that of function. From the
viewpoint of intention, a Christological title expresses the intention of the Church, which
indicates its faith pointing to the object of faith, which is Jesus. If the title “Christ” points
to the person of Jesus, the title “the Church of Christ” also points to him. From the
functional viewpoint, through these titles the Church expresses the religious experiences
it acquires through having a relationship with Jesus who is the object of its faith. Since
these religious experiences correspond to the condition of the Church’s life and culture in
each period, the titles of Jesus also vary. Along the same lines, the names of the Church
also differ, for they reflect particular periods of its history. We will find out how the
primitive Church understood Jesus Christ.
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Crucified God, p. 106. “History” is an interaction between partners. The
expression “person and history of Jesus” means his relationship to God, his Father and to his
contemporaries. In this sense, we consider not only how he saw himself in interacting with others, but also
how others saw and judged him.
20
1.1. Who is Jesus?

Because Jesus has been acknowledged as the Christ of God and will continue to
be part of history until the end of the world, people have raised questions: Who is he and
exactly why is he considered the Christ of God?
1.1.1. Speculative Christology

There are different answers to these questions. Of course, all answers have to be
understandable to human beings, for men are the ones who propose these opinions.
Moltmann, in discussing this subject mentions E. Kant and F. Schleiermacher. Under the
influence of E. Kant, interpretations of Jesus have to conform to practical reason. If God
wants to reveal himself to mankind, his revelations need to be in harmony with what
reason considers as acceptable to God. According to E. Kant, all interpretations of
Scripture concerning religion have to follow the principle of morality. In this sense, only
Jesus is a person who is totally favourable to God. He accomplishes all human duty and
is ready to take on himself all sufferings, even death, for the sake of the salvation of
mankind.1 Therefore, Jesus seems to meet the expectations that the Jews assigned to the
Messiah of the Old Testament. On the contrary, F. Schleiermacher does not restrain
himself to a Christology of morality, but develops a Christology of personal relation.
According to F. Schleiermacher, Jesus is the Christ of God who resembles all human
beings, but who is different from them all because of the permanent energy of his
consciousness of God. He makes us participate in his consciousness of God.2 In both the
Christologies of E. Kant and F. Schleiermacher, Jesus becomes either a moral or
redeeming model for human beings.3 However, Moltmann alleges that while Christians
can recognize and accept Jesus as a perfect man and follow him, non-Christians cannot
see the difference between Jesus and the prophets or other great human beings, and thus
can follow others than Jesus. He complains that the Christology of the ancient Church
and speculative Christology want to have a Christology for themselves, but not for non-
1
Cf. ibid., p. 92.
2
Cf. ibid., p. 93-94.
3
Cf. E. KANT, Religion with the Limits of Reason Alone, reprinted, New York: Harper and Row, 1960, p.
54f.; F. SCHLEIERMACHER, The Christian Faith (1928), reprinted, Edinburgh: Clark, 1968, p. 385f.
21
Christians and unbelievers; and he therefore proposes a new Christology whose point of
departure is the cross, which should be welcomed both by Christians and non-Christians.1
The first Christians could see Jesus as a moral and redeeming model and found in
him the way, the truth, and the life. They tried to explain the non-analogical events of
Jesus’ life inasmuch as they accepted him as the Messiah.2 For them, Jesus Christ is the
Messiah who had come from God, or who was anointed and sent by God. He is the Christ
of God and was able to perform great deeds for God’s people. In identifying Jesus of
Nazareth with the Messiah, they became the first believers, and began to proclaim him.
1.1.2. The historical Jesus and christian kerugma

Here the question is raised: Whether Jesus who preached and Jesus Christ who
was preached about is the same person? Does the Church’s preaching about the Christ
reflect Jesus and his history, or is it the Church’s post-Easter interpretation of Jesus and
his teachings? Every Christian should ask himself whether his faith in Jesus Christ is pure
and true, and about Jesus himself, or is rather a faith resulting from the Church’s
eschatological reflection, or even from his own piety. How can one distinguish historical
faith from eschatological faith?
These questions have to be dealt with both from historical and theological
perspectives. From the historical perspective, the task belongs to scientific, historical
criticism whose quest is finding the historical figure of Jesus. Its method relies on
historical criticism, and it critically examines Church doctrines and the post-Easter
testimonies of the primitive Christian faith described in the Scriptures. The historical
criticism school of R. Bultmann might be able to discover the common and different
elements in the preaching of Jesus and in that of the primitive Church.3 However,
Moltmann disapproves of the separation between a historical task which tries to find out
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Crucified God, p. 94-97.
2
According to D. J. GOERGEN, “The earliest Christian interpretations of the death of Jesus developed
somewhat in the following fashion. (1) Jesus died a prophet’s death. He was a martyr. The resurrection was
his vindication. (2) Jesus was chosen Servant. Thus God must have been present to the death of Jesus and
not absent from it. Therefore the death of Jesus was part of God’s plan and in some sense even God’s work.
God did not and would not abandon his Servant. (3) In accord with the varied theologies of ‘the Servant of
God’ (Is. 42:1- 4; 49:1-6; 50:4-11; 52:13-53:12), Jesus’ death had salvific significance or saving efficacy
(Is. 52:13-53:12)” (D. J. GOERGEN, “Christ” in M. DOWNEY (ed.), The New Dictionary of Catholic
Spirituality, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1993, p. 152-163, at 162).
3
Cf. R. BULTMANN, Faith and Understanding, London: SCM Press, 1969, p. 223f.; Theology of the New
Testament I, London: SCM Press, 1952, p. 3-32.
22
about the earthly Jesus (Jesuology) and a theological task which views Christ as the
object of the proclamation of the Church (Christology). He asserts that “[Jesus’] his life,
preaching and ministry, and his death too, were in his own mind theologically
determined,”1 and that his resurrection and exaltation are related to his historical life.
So we should apply the theological method in the historical study. “In this case
the relationship of the primitive Christian gospel to the historical Jesus must be
understood as the theme of Christology. But this means in the first instance that the
intimate link between Jesus’ preaching and his person must be taken seriously, and
attention must be paid to the significance of his death on the cross for his preaching and
for the primitive Christian kerygma.”2 In fact, there is a link between the person of Jesus,
his death, his resurrection and his preaching about the kingdom of God; otherwise none
of it would have had salvific meaning. Since the life of Jesus was transformed by his
death and resurrection, his preaching too has to be transformed when transmitted and
proclaimed by the Church. Thus, there must be a discontinuity within the continuity
between the primitive Christian gospel and the preaching of Jesus. The question of how
Jesus who preached became Christ who is preached is answered by the fact that because
he was crucified and died but was raised and became alive; he was humiliated but was
exalted. In short, “the preaching of Christ by the primitive Church is therefore the
apostolic form of Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom. Because the preaching of the Church,
as a result of the fate that overtook Jesus Himself, has taken on the form of the crucified
one, the Church proclaims his message by proclaiming the crucified and risen Christ.”3
Moltmann wants to pick up what the historical method has discarded and goes
further in treating what concerns each person’s eschatological decision.4 Thus one should
get to know Jesus by looking at him in the light of his life and ministry, narrating the
activities of Jesus from the beginning to the end of the history of the crucified man, and
then at the same time understand him in the light of eschatological faith, through his
resurrection from the dead, and finally make the decision to proclaim him as the Christ.
The theological consideration reinforces the identification of the crucified Jesus with the
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Crucified God, p. 114.
2
Ibid., p. 120-121.
3
Ibid., p. 124-125.
4
Cf. J. L. SOULETIE, La Croix de Dieu. Eschatologie et histoire dans la perspective christologique de
Jürgen Moltmann, Paris : Cerf, 1997, p. 30.
23
resurrected Christ. Consequently, there are correspondences between the preaching of

Jesus and the kerugma of the Church.1
Who was Jesus whom the primitive Church preached? Jesus of Nazareth would
have been forgotten in that he suffered death like all human beings; however, because of
his resurrection people retrospectively interpreted his life, history, and death from an
eschatological perspective. Thus, the discontinuity ‘between him and us’ was broken and
the continuity took its place. Now his life, preaching, and death were not considered
contradictory, and Jesus the announcer came to be announced as the Son of God.2
1.1.3. God becomes man

If people believe that Jesus is the messiah who is the Son of God, they have to
admit that he is divine. Consequently they need to pose a question: How can the
intransitory divine entity become a transitory human being? How can the immortal God
suffer and die? Some people think that God cannot become man and cannot die. From
this affirmation, one might infer further that because Jesus suffered and died, he cannot
be God.
However, it is possible that Jesus is God if God decided to become incarnate. If
the infinite, intransitory and immortal God wanted to enter into the sphere of the
condition of mankind, God could be Jesus. Whereas the prologue of the gospel of St.
John indicates his divine origin a priori, according to the synoptic gospels the divinity of
Jesus is an a posteriori affirmation only after his death and resurrection. Because God
becomes man, Jesus’ death is necessary. The death of Jesus is not contrary to the divinity
of God, but rather necessary for God when he becomes man; it is essential for his “self-
realization”. The resurrection of Jesus is also necessary if humanity is to recognize Jesus
as God.3
We can summarize: if the first Christians acknowledged Jesus not as a political
figure, but as the Christ who originated from God, it is because they could accept the fact
that he died on the cross, a type of death considered foolish for the unbelievers. The death
of Jesus was at the same time a historical fact and also had an eschatological purpose.
1
Cf. The Crucified God. p. 125.
2
Cf. J. L. SOULETIE, La Croix de Dieu. Eschatologie et histoire dans la perspective christologique de
Jürgen Moltmann, p. 28-29.
3
24
The first Christians could not have understood all aspects of Jesus’ life that led to his
death if they had relied on analogy alone. Ultimately they had to rely on faith in order to
be able to acknowledge him as the One who came from God, died and resurrected. He
was a historical figure and at the same time divine. This faith was, on the one hand, the
grace of God and, on the other hand, spurred them on to recall and interpret the life of
Jesus, from his resurrection back to his early life, and consequently preached about him.
Thus Jesus who used to preach became the preached.
Only in the light of his resurrection was Jesus’ proclamation regarded as the
Christ’s proclamation, which became the Church’s proclamation of Jesus Christ. It is
essential to mention here that the fact of Jesus’ rising from the dead alone would not have
been enough for people to have recognized the risen Jesus as the Christ. They had rather
to look back at what Jesus did and proclaimed, now seen in the light of the resurrection,
in order to acknowledge the Christ. In other words, because the understanding of Jesus’
pre-Easter preaching was necessarily transformed after Easter, “there is hence no
fundamental difference between the proclamation of Jesus and the proclamation of the
Church. Through his history itself, Jesus’ gospel about the kingdom of God became the
Church’s gospel about Jesus, the Christ of God.”1
1.2. Jesus Christ is the Messiah

The Christological titles such as “Messiah”, “Son of man”, “the Christ of God”,
“kyrios”, and “Logos” connote who Jesus is, not only in terms of who he considered
himself to be but also in terms of how people saw him. Yet since these titles are not only
admitted by Jesus, but also given to him by people, they are historically conditioned and
vary from period to period. If the Church is the Church of Christ, the self-understanding
of the Church depends on how it interprets the person of Jesus and his history. It is true
especially when we consider that the person of Jesus and his history is not definitely
determined, but is still becoming. This point is pertinent to the eschatological
ecclesiology of Moltmann.
The title “the Christ of God”, considered as fundamental in the ecclesiology of
Moltmann, is closely related to the resurrection of Jesus. The raising of Jesus from the
death revealed that he was indeed sent by God and was the Messiah that Israel had been
1
25
waiting for. The Hebrew term “Messiah” means Christos in Greek, which means
“anointed one”. The title “Messiah” in earliest Christian history meant “the awaited
Savior,” whose meaning necessarily reflected the experience of people and their
expectation. Because the resurrection of Jesus was a revelatory event, the resurrected
Jesus was recognized as the Christ of God, the Messiah, the one coming from God and
sent by him.1 However, the Gospels seem to point to the revelation of Jesus as the
Messiah having taken place at various times before his resurrection.
In considering the identity of Jesus as the Messiah, we have to distinguish two
realities: revelation and people’s acknowledgement. The revelation of Jesus’ identity
proceeds from various interpretations. The Gospel of John 1: 1-18 sees Jesus’ sonship as
having begun before he was conceived. The Gospel of Mark indicates that Jesus was
made known as the Messiah as of his baptism: “You are my beloved Son, with you I am
well pleased” (Mk. 1: 11), while the infant narratives of Matthew and Luke both suggest
that Jesus became the Messiah at his birth. St. Paul, however, says that Jesus was
“established as the Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness through
resurrection from the dead”(Rm. 1: 4).2 Jesus’ divine sonship was certainly made known
through these events. However, one may raise a question as to whether Jesus himself was
conscious of his relationship with his Father at those moments, or rather at other times,
such as when he called his Father Abba or when he preached in the temple. Moltmann
says that when the Spirit descended upon him as a dove (Mk 1:10), Jesus experienced
himself as the Messiah and experienced the Father of Israel as his Abba.3
To summarize, we need to distinguish four different possible moments: 1) when
Jesus became the Messiah; 2) when the Father revealed him as the Messiah; 3) when
Jesus was conscious of his being the Messiah; 4) the time when people acknowledged
him as the Messiah.
Here I want to make the point that the formation of the primitive Church was
conditioned by the first Christians’ recognition of Jesus as the Messiah. To this purpose,
in light of these four possibilities concerning the Messiah, we are led to ask whether the
1
Cf. D. J. GOERGEN, “Christ” in M. DOWNEY (ed.), The New Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality, p. 152.
2
Cf. ibid., p.152-153.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Spirit of Life, London: SCM Press, 1992, p. 61, trans by M. Kohl from the
German Der Geist des Lebens: Eine ganzheitliche Pneumatologie, Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1991.
26
Church started to exist before the Pentecost when the risen Lord appeared to the women
and the disciples, and they recognized him as Jesus, or only at the Pentecost, when the
Spirit of Christ illumined the disciples, both men and women, to acknowledge the Christ.
Going back to the statement of Moltmann: “there is only a Church if and as long as Jesus
of Nazareth is believed and acknowledged as the Christ of God,” we will be able to draw
the conclusion that the Church started to exist only after the event of Jesus’ resurrection,
once people, only by experiencing the Easter appearance or believing in the fact of Jesus’
resurrection, acknowledged him as the Messiah. In any case, the early Christians were
able to recognize the Christ because his Spirit was with them. According to Moltmann, in
both experiences, either of the Easter appearances or of the Pentecost, it was the Spirit
who acted upon the believers: “In the seeing of the risen Christ, those who perceived him
experienced the life-giving power of the Spirit; and conversely, it is this quickening
power of the Spirit which allows Christ to be perceived, either through seeing or
hearing.”1
The title “the Messiah, the Christ” also has the eschatological connotation that
Jesus has passed from his historically earthly life into his glorified and eschatological
existence. He still lives and remains with us. The Church of Christ continues to exist
precisely because the Christ is with it.
Summarizing, we notice that Moltmann wants to say several things. Firstly, the
Church came to exist when it recognized and believed that Jesus was the Christ of God,
the Messiah whom the Old Testament announced and that Israel had been waiting for.
Secondly, Jesus of Nazareth is the eschatological Christ who went through death, is now
alive and will come again in glory. Thirdly, the Church continues to exist only if it
continues to believe and acknowledge the Christ of God, for he remains in it and sustains
it.
1.3. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God

“ When John heard in prison of the works of the Messiah, he sent his disciples to
him with this question, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?’
Jesus said to them in reply, ‘Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind regain
their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the
1
Ibid., p.66.
27
poor have the good news proclaimed to them” (Mt. 11: 2-5). There are two reasons why
John the Baptist posed this question: first of all, because the Old Testament had promised
a Messiah. Secondly, the Jews saw that Jesus, through his great works, seemed to meet
certain characteristics they had expected of this Messiah. Indeed, although Jesus did not
answer the question directly, he hinted that his acts and words tell who he is. People
expected a Messiah who would come to change their history, to give them hope. The Old
Testament had promised a better future for the chosen people of God and now Jesus came
to fulfil this promise. Because of his signs and teachings John the Baptist and his
disciples assumed that he was “he who is to come.”
1.3.1. Jesus’ self-revelation

Jesus revealed himself not only by answering questions, but also by asking his
disciples questions: “Who do men say that the Son of Man is” (Mt. 16:13)? His
contemporaries had different opinions about Jesus: John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, the
prophet. Only Peter, through faith, had the correct answer: “You are the Christ, the Son
of the living God” (Mt. 16: 16). Jesus did not directly confirm Peter’s answer, but
indirectly agreed with it by saying: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and
blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father” (Mt. 16:17).
Just as John the Baptist and his disciples wondered who Jesus was, similarly, after
witnessing great deeds and hearing great teachings by Jesus, the crowd could not help but
question his identity; they discussed among themselves who he might be. They were
talking about Jesus of Nazareth who walked and taught every day; they could see
particular qualities in him. One particular point we should notice here: Jesus called
himself “the Son of Man” and people understood who he was talking about. The question
is what kind of person did Jesus mean himself to be and what kind of person did people
think him to be when they heard him present himself as “the Son of Man”? Are the two
connotations one and the same or different?
In the Old Testament, the phrase “Son of Man” indicates either “human being”
(Num. 23: 19; Is. 51: 12; Ps. 8: 5; etc.) or an eschatological heavenly figure (Dan. 7: 1-
14). In the New Testament it designates three meanings. 1) An eschatological judge
whom Jesus referred to as a third person (Mk. 13:26); 2) Jesus himself active in his
ministry at the moment he was talking (Lk. 9: 58); 3) Jesus as suffering, dying and rising
28
(Mk. 8: 31). Jesus clearly meant the last two meanings. Whether he indicated the first
meaning, i.e., a coming judge, is disputed. While people before the resurrection probably
did not think of Jesus as a coming judge, we are sure that after the resurrection they
understood him to be a coming, eschatological “Son of Man.”1 In any case, when Peter
reported people’s and his own answer, he was talking precisely about Jesus of Nazareth.
But why did Jesus raise a question about himself? It is because he appeared not to be like
any other great human being but like a person sent by God. What was Peter’s answer and
did Jesus agree with him?
“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” was the answer. Does “the Christ”
and “the Son of the living God” mean the same thing or is “the Son of the living God” an
attribute of “the Christ”? We have already explained the meaning of the title “Christ”;
now we will find out the meaning of the title “the Son of God.” In the Old Testament, the
angels (cf. Job. 1: 6) as well as Israel (cf. Ex. 4: 22-23) are called sons of God. In the
New Testament, the title clearly had a different meaning from the title “Son of Man”. It
does not mean filial relationship between created human beings or between angels and
God, but specifies an ontologically and functionally different entity. “Son of God”
designates Jesus who is the divine and pre-existent Son of God and the Saviour sent by
the Father. In this sense, the title “Son of the living God” is more comprehensive than
that of “the Christ” which means “he who was to come.” This meaning of “the Son of
God” was not a human thought but a revelation from the Father.
Jesus indicated his agreement with Peter’s answer. His statement in Mt. 16:17
indicates three points. Firstly, it is the Father who reveals the identity of Jesus as the
Christ. Secondly, Jesus is always the Christ even before his death and resurrection.
Thirdly, the Christ was recognized before the events of his Easter appearance and of
Pentecost.2 We can also draw two more points from these facts: first, the Father had
revealed the identity of Jesus as the Messiah earlier, at Jesus’ baptism, but probably
1
Cf. T. J. RYAN, “Son of Man” in P. K. MESGHER, T. C. O’BRIEN, C. M. AHERNE (eds), Encyclopedic
Dictionary of Religion, vol. O-Z, Washington, D.C.: Corpus Publications, 1979, p. 3346-3348, at 3346.
2
This is the argument of R. PESCH cited by W. KASPER, Jesus The Christ, Great Britain/USA: Burns
&Oates/Paulist Press, 1976, p. 106. See R. PESCH, “Das Messiasbekenntnis des Petrus (Mk. 8: 27-30).
Neuverhandlung einer alten Frage“ in Biblische Zeitschrift 17, 1973, p. 178-195; 18 (1974), p. 20-31.
29
nobody took it to heart; secondly, although Peter and others1 had recognized Jesus as the
Christ, but they did not gather into a Church until later.
The question of Jesus’ self-consciousness of his identity and vocation is raised
continuously. John seems to indicate that Jesus is open to the revelation of his Father and
to the recognition of people: “I came from God and am here; I did not come on my own,
but he sent me” (Jn. 8: 42). “So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, ‘How long
are you going to keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.’ Jesus
answered them, ‘I told you and you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name
testify to me’ ” (Jn. 10: 24-25). The awareness on the part of people regarding Jesus’
identity and mission was an essential element in his revelation by the Father and by Jesus
himself; that brought about the confirmation on the part of Jesus and the
acknowledgement on the part of People that Jesus is the Messiah.
1.3.2. Christian affirmation

Not only John the Baptist, his disciples and the contemporary Jews had hope of
redemption and the kingdom; also the whole primitive Church had this same hope. The
first Christians also posed the same question: “Is Jesus he who was to come”? Their
answer was affirmative because they could recall the history of Jesus and believe in the
witness of the disciples. He identified himself to all classes of society; he taught wisdom,
love and forgiveness; he was rejected and condemned to death on the cross, but now he is
risen, and his resurrection was real for them.
Jesus inaugurated the kingdom of God. Whereas people expected a temporary and
earthly kingdom of God, Jesus was open to a permanent and eschatological kingdom.
After the experience of the death and resurrection of Jesus, his disciples started to
recognize the eschatological kingdom inaugurated by the crucified Jesus. In reflecting the
belief of the first Christians, St. Paul developed an eschatological Christology of the
crucified Jesus and regarded the crucified Christ as the representative and central figure
of the universal future (cf. I Cor. 15: 28). One cannot understand the Messiah without
1
In John 3: 2, Nicodemus and others recognized that Jesus came from God: “Rabbi, we know that you are
a teacher who has come from God, for no one can do these signs that you are doing unless God is with
him”; in John 7: 41, some of the crowds said: “This is the Messiah.”
30
accepting the fact that Jesus had to suffer for the unredeemed world and without having
hope in the kingdom of God (cf. Lk. 24: 26).1
In short, the early Church took a journey, reviewing Jesus’ history, departing from
his resurrection back to his death, suffering, preaching and birth, in order to hope in the
redemption and anticipate the kingdom; and thus, they firmly believed that Jesus was “he
who is to come”. This process enabled them to open themselves up to the future, a future
of hope and promise. They felt that Jesus had identified himself to them, for he had an
earthly life like them; this gave them hope. His preaching about the kingdom and the
promise of redemption, accompanied by his resurrection gave them the foundation of
their hope. Indeed, acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah and believing in him as “he who
is to come” is hoping in the fulfilment of future promise.
To conclude, we make two points: Firstly, by the answer of faith, the disciples
opened themselves to the future. By posing this question about himself, and recognizing
the answer of Peter as the answer of faith, Jesus was open to the future. Secondly, the
questions posed by Jesus, John the Baptist and the crowds as well as the answers
proposed by Peter and by people were also repeated by the first Christians of the
primitive Church and affirmed by them. By saying this, we are able to connect the
subjects of the titles of Jesus with the foundation of the Church.2
2. THE SUFFERING MESSIAH

From the viewpoint of the first Christians, the resurrection of Jesus is essential to
their recognition of the Christ of God. But since the resurrection has to point back to his
death, and his death leads back to his history, actions, and the teachings which constituted
the cause of his death sentence, it is indispensable to review the whole life of Jesus if one
wants to discover Jesus as the Christ. In other words, the axis of the discussion about the
origin of the Church evolves around the person of Jesus with a view to recognizing him
as the Christ. When considering the person of Jesus, we should not only include all the
aspects of his life comprising his earthly acts, his history, his suffering and death, his
resurrection, but also his becoming. We will discuss firstly Jesus’ road to his death, i.e.,
1
2
Cf. Ibid., p. 102-106.
31
the reasons for his condemnation, then secondly the eschatological Jesus, with a view
towards understanding the foundation of the Church.
Jesus was first of all condemned by the Jews. They considered him a blasphemer,
for he claimed to be divine and greater than their forefather Moses. The Romans
condemned him because they were afraid that he might incite people to rebel against
Roman authority. But the most imperative reason for his death, accentuated by
Moltmann, is his forsakenness by his Father.
2.1. Jesus above the law: the blasphemer

Which claims and actions of Jesus were unacceptable to his Jewish
contemporaries? One of the main characteristics of the “Messiah” is that he must come
from God, in terms of his origin or approval. He often said that he came from above. He
directly acknowledged that he was the Messiah when he responded ‘I am’ to the question
posed by the high priest “Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed one?” (cf. Mk. 15:
61). Other times he approved the professions of Peter and Nicodemus (cf. Mt. 16: 16;
Jn. 3: 2). Furthermore, he said “My Father is at work until now, so I am at work”(Jn. 5:
17). “For this reason the Jews tried all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the
Sabbath but he also called God his own Father, making himself equal to God” (Jn. 5:18).
Jesus told those who were against him: “But now you are trying to kill me, a man who
has told you the truth that I heard from God…I came from God and am here; I did not
come on my own, but he sent me” (Jn. 9: 40, 42).
Moltmann at one point says “doubts have been expressed whether Jesus was
1
really condemned and executed because of a declared claim to be the Messiah”. At
another time, he implies that claiming to be a Messiah was considered a blasphemy: “But
he was no doubt accused of putting himself messianically on the same level as almighty
God himself.”2 People would not have condemned the true Messiah if they had
recognized him. However, is it truly that a majority of the Jewish authorities did not
realize that Jesus was the Messiah? There was disagreement among them, as the Gospel
indicates: “But we know where he is from. When the Messiah comes, no one will know
1
Ibid., p.129.
2
J. MOLTMANN, The Way of Jesus Christ: Christology in messianic dimensions, London: SCM Press,
1990, p. 162, trans by M. Kohl from the German Der Weg Jesu Christi: Christologie in messianischen
Dimensionen, Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1989.
32
where he is from” (Jn. 7: 27). “But many of the crowd began to believe in him”(Jn. 7:31).
The crowd believed in him, showing this by placing leaves on the way when Jesus
entered Jerusalem; however, they had no means or courage to protect him. As a matter of
fact, “the Jews (religious leaders) had already agreed that if anyone acknowledged him as
the Messiah, he would be expelled from the synagogue” (Jn. 9: 22). Therefore, “no one
(among the crowd) spoke openly about him because they were afraid of the Jews” (Jn. 7:
13). Furthermore, the religious leaders were afraid that the crowd, by Jesus’ stimulation,
might rise up so that the Romans would take away their land and nation (cf. Jn. 11: 48).
Considering this, it was not clear how many religious leaders believed in Jesus, and
intimidation due to the Romans might be a real factor.1
If the Jewish contemporaries of Jesus condemned him, it was not because of his
claim of being the Messiah or from God, but because they could not recognize him as the
Messiah. The reason why they did not recognize him as the Messiah was the
contradiction between his claim and his way of life and appearance. Certainly, Jesus’
claim of being equal to God contributed directly to his death sentence. “The Jews again
picked up rocks to stone him. Jesus answered them, ‘I have shown you many good works
from my Father. For which of these are you trying to stone me?’ The Jews answered him,
‘We are not stoning you for a good work but for blasphemy, You, a man, are making
yourself God”(Jn. 10: 31-33). A Messiah, for the Jews, would come from God, but could
not be equal to God; otherwise, this would contradict their monotheistic faith. Therefore,
claiming to be equal to God was considered the greatest blasphemy.
Another blasphemy was giving oneself the authority of forgiving sins. For the
Jews, not even the Messiah but only God can forgive sins. “He said to the paralytic,
‘Courage, child, your sins are forgiven.’ At that, some of the scribes said to themselves,
‘This man is blaspheming”(Mt. 9: 2-3). In the eyes of the Jews, Moses’ law is sacred. It
condemns sinners, i.e., those who transgress the law. Therefore, when Jesus, with
authority, demonstrated the new law of forgiveness of God and conferred on himself the
authority of forgiveness, he was considered a usurper of the power of God. A Messiah
has to follow the Law of Moses, condemning transgressors. However, now Jesus forgives
sins; for which, he abolishes the distinction between righteous and unrighteous, but most
1
Cf. ibid., p. 160.
33
of all he puts himself in the place of a judge and renders the Mosaic Law invalid. He
turns up side down the traditional understanding of people regarding the law. People
could not accept that a poor man from Nazareth calls God his father and shows that he is
greater than Moses; therefore, they concluded that he was a blasphemer: “Jesus said to
them, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.’ So they picked up
stones to throw at him” (Jn. 8: 58-59). Not only his poor lifestyle but also his association
with the poor and sinners contradicted what he claimed to be. How can a Messiah
associate with sinners and tax collectors? In other words, Jesus’ proclamation about the
imminence of the kingdom of God where righteousness and the grace of God would be
granted not through judgment but gratuitously to the lowly, the abandoned, and the poor,
despite the fact that they might be unrighteous, provoked people to protect the Old Law.
The religious authority could not but protect the Mosaic Law, which gave people hope
for justice, and so they rejected Jesus for his acts and teachings opposed to this law.
Along with the blasphemy against the Law committed by Jesus, people also
accused him of many other offenses. Cleansing the temple and threatening to destroy the
temple surely insulted the people.1 Also his strange teaching about eating his flesh
infuriated the people: “The Jews murmured about him because he said, ‘I am the bread
that came down from heaven’ ” (Jn. 6: 41). “The Jews quarreled among themselves,
saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”(Jn. 6: 52). His supposedly arrogant
and unreasonable speeches certainly irritated people. Furthermore, the novelty of his
teaching provoked the most opposition from the ruling and rich class who considered
themselves the righteous. While people expected a kingdom of God where there would be
justice only for the righteous, the kingdom Jesus preached would offer justice to the
unrighteous, i.e., the powerless and the rejected, while the supposedly righteous were left
out.2
Because our access is limited to almost exclusively post-Easter Christian
testimonies, it is hard to separate the pre-Easter history of Jesus from post-Easter
recollections on his history. However one of the facts about the history of Jesus we can
recognize is the novelty of his teaching. It is novel compared to that of John the Baptist,
1
Cf. ibid., p. 161. See also J. MOLTMANN, The Crucified God, p.129.
2
Ibid., p. 132.
34
who already preached the imminence of the kingdom. Jesus also announced the kingdom,
but the way he preached and the fact that it was he who preached made his preaching
novel, and this novelty led him to his crucifixion. Here we try to understand the reason
why Jesus had to die on the cross by looking at the context of his life. If he had died a
natural death there would be no question here. However, the fact is he was condemned to
death due to his ministry. In other words, the content and manner of his preaching and the
fact that it was he, considered as a poor and normal person from Nazareth, who preached,
caused conflict with the Jews, the politicians and the lawgivers, and thus led him to that
kind of death.1
2.2. Jesus rebels against authority

Although the devout and the religious leaders opposed Jesus for religious reasons,
they did not stone him. On the contrary, he was crucified by the Romans. This fact
indicates that he was not only condemned for religious motives, but most of all for
political ones. The question is whether he was involved in politics. Crucifixion was
reserved for escaped slaves and political criminals or rebels against the state. In Israel, at
that time, there were popular uprisings against the Roman Empire. Many, including at
least one of his disciples, Simon, belonged to the Zealot party. Peter son of Jonah and
Judas Iscariot probably were also Zealots.2 Apparently, Jesus also associated with people
of this party. He was a public figure; therefore, it was almost impossible for him to
disregard politics. Furthermore, he preached against oppression, which the Romans were
imposing on the Jews. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the Roman authorities
crucified him for political reasons. Moltmann agrees with O. Cullmann that Pilate
condemned Jesus as a Zealot, a political leader.3 On the cross of Jesus there was the
inscription “INRI” - “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews”. This fact indicates the real
intention of the Romans: anyone who claimed or was claimed to be a king of the Jews
had to be condemned to death according to their law.4 The Romans feared Jesus because
hundreds of people followed him daily. Jesus had a great influence on people, and they
1
Cf. ibid., p. 122.
2
Cf. Ibid. p.141.
3
Cf. Ibid., p. 138. See O. CULLMANN, Jesus und die Revolutionären seiner Zeit, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr
(Paul Siebeck), 1970. p. 47.
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Way of Jesus Christ, p. 163.
35
would have done whatever he might tell them to do. The Romans and their collaborators
were afraid that the effect of Jesus’ ministry might be a popular revolt.1
Because cleansing and threatening to destroy the temple symbolically indicated
Zealot actions,2 such acts were regarded by the political leaders as revolutionary, and by
the religious leaders as blasphemous. Moltmann points out three indicators that his arrest
was for political reasons.3 First, Jesus was arrested at night. Certainly, at daytime his
followers would have protected him. Secondly, Jesus indicated this motive when he said
to the arrestors: “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to seize
me?” (Mk. 14: 48). Thirdly, at the interrogation the high priest wanted Jesus to take back
the claim of being the Messiah. However, only after Jesus confirmed it, was he handed
over (cf. Mk. 14: 61-62). “Messiah” was associated with political characters. Briefly,
Jesus was considered as a political leader and thus condemned to death.
Being a Zealot associate, Jesus refused to worship the state gods of Rome.
Because Jesus preached worshiping one God of Israel, he was considered a rebel whom
the Romans did not distinguish from the Zealots. Like the Zealots, Jesus announced the
imminent coming of the kingdom of God. He did not have any polemic against the
Zealots, although he often talked against the Pharisees. Jesus attracted Zealots to himself.
He called Herod a ‘fox’ as other Zealots did. These are the features which associated
Jesus to the Zealot party.
However, there are also indications that Jesus dissociated himself from the
Zealots. While the Zealots would use force to bring about the liberation of Israel from
Roman repression, Jesus preached non-violence. Although he said that his kingdom was
not from earth, he did not mean that it was not “here and now”, but rather meant that it is
already present on earth and does not involve earthly politics; his kingdom is different
from earthly kingdoms. Like the Zealots, he opposed oppression, but he did not endorse
revenge; rather he encouraged love of enemies and prayer for persecutors. While the
Zealots were radical legalists, on the contrary, Jesus lived and preached freedom from
legalism. For the Zealots, the righteousness of God involved the judgment and
punishment of the godless, while for Jesus it meant forgiveness and grace of God for both
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Crucified God, p. 341.
2
Cf. ibid., p. 141
3
36
the righteous and unrighteous. Jesus broke down the tradition of the Zealots and
Pharisees regarding friendship and enmity. He accepted tax-collectors into his group of
disciples and associated with enemies and sinners.
For religious motivations, the Pharisees handed Jesus over to the Romans, who
crucified him for political reasons. Based on what we have seen, we can ask the question
of whether he was condemned justly for his religious and political offences. Is there any
misunderstanding? If there is the misunderstanding, is the misunderstanding on the part
of the Pharisees on the same level as that of the Romans? These are the two interesting
questions also asked by Moltmann. In answering these questions, Moltmann analyzes the
similarities and contraries between Jesus and the Zealots from two different points of
view: the viewpoint of the Pharisees and that of the Romans. For the Pharisees, Jesus
broke with legalism, whereas the Zealots were radical legalists. Jesus propagated the
righteousness of God as the law of grace and forgiveness while the Zealots and the
Pharisees practiced judgment and condemnation of the unrighteous. He attacked their
religious and political principles; therefore, they regarded him as a blasphemer and
intentionally handed him over to the Romans. They condemned him not because he
claimed to be a Messiah, but because he offended the law. From the viewpoint of the
Romans, both Jesus and the Zealots disturbed the status quo and caused political unrest.
“Even if Jesus did not call for a revolt against Rome, his messianic activity among the
people must in any case have made him a public threat to the Romans, and therefore, in
the Sadducean view as well, a danger for the Jewish population of Jerusalem, who had to
fear Roman retaliation.”1 When Jesus drew around himself a great public who wanted to
proclaim him king of the Jews, the Romans became nervous. For them he was a Zealot
rebel and agitator. Although accusing Jesus of political rebellion was not enough to
guarantee Pilate public approval, he therefore wanted Jesus to confirm one last time
whether he was the Messiah; Jesus responded “yes”. According to Moltmann, the greatest
offence of Jesus was breaking with the law and tradition.2 However, one cannot ignore
the other offence, which was probably greater in the eyes of the Jews, i.e., claiming to
equal the God of the Jews. Believing this, Pilate wanted to assure the Jews that he was
1
Ibid., p. 163-164.
2
37
condemning Jesus as they expected him to. In any case, Jesus had to be seen to be
involved in both religious and political affairs. He offended the political Zealots, the
religious leaders as well as well the Romans; this was the cause of his death.
2.3. Jesus is forsaken by God

Jesus suffered and died on the cross. This is a historical fact and a main
constituent of the Christian faith. However, from the beginning of the Church, everyone
has sought to understand the suffering and death of Jesus on the cross and asked
questions: Why did Jesus die on the cross? What was the nature of his suffering?
Numerous attempts have been made to answer these questions. The metaphysical
tradition of Greek philosophy led to the argument that because God is unchangeable, self-
sufficient and impassible, he is incapable of suffering.1 Moltmann agrees that apathy is
the very essence of the divine nature. However, this reasoning is insufficient. According
to him, there are three possibilities: an incapacity to suffer, a fateful subjection to
suffering, and an active suffering. The first possibility represents the Greek concept of
God, while the third possibility is the suffering of love. Moltmann explains further that
God opens himself to suffering because he can love. “Were God incapable of suffering in
any respect, and therefore in an absolute sense, then he would also be incapable of love.
If love is the acceptance of the other without regard to one’s own well-being, then it
contains within itself the possibility of sharing in suffering and freedom to suffer as a
result of the otherness of the other. Incapability of suffering in this sense would
contradict the fundamental Christian assersion that God is love.”2
If the Jews and Greeks could not understand the death of Jesus, in the light of the
resurrection, Christians can explain why Jesus died in that way: “For Jews demand signs
and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews
and foolishness to Gentiles” (I Cor. 1: 22-23). Christians can explain the nature of the
death of Jesus from the context of his life and within the context of his relationship with
his Father.
1
Docetism, basing on the Greek thought, held that Jesus Christ, as far as God, did not suffer or die. Jesus
only has an apparent body, and he only appeared to suffer and die.
2
J. MOLTMANN, The Crucified God, p. 237; cf. Jesus Christ for Today’s World, London: SCM Press, 1994,
p. 45, trans. by M. Kohl from the German Wer is Christus für uns heute?, Gütersloh: Kaiser Verlag, 1994.
38
The priests considered Jesus a blasphemer and handed him over to the Romans,
who condemned him to death on the cross. Two other Zealots were also crucified with
him, but Jesus’ death is different from that of the other two. The difference here is the
real reason behind their death. The two Zealots accepted the sentence and died because of
the failure of their revolt: “We have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received
corresponds to our crimes, but this man [Jesus] has done nothing criminal” (Luke 23: 41).
They did not regret their death because they died for their cause and hoped God would
avenge them and award them resurrection. In the case of Jesus, there may be
misunderstanding on the part of the religious leaders and the Romans in executing him as
a blasphemer or agitator. Furthermore, unlike the two criminals who admitted their
crimes against the Romans, Jesus never admitted any wrong doing, and would have
preferred avoiding that horribly unfair death.
Jesus said extraordinary things about his death. Mark 15: 34 recorded some of his
last words on the cross: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” and Luke notes
another of his sayings: “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” (Luke 23: 46).
Before his arrest, Jesus already knew that he would be persecuted, so he prayed to his
Father: “Abba, my Father, all things are possible for you; take this cup from me” (Mark
14: 36) and “Father, if you are willing, let this cup pass from me” (Luke 22: 42). The
death of Jesus was not the death of a prophet or a devout religious man, or of an insurgent
who died for political reasons, but had to do with God. In other words, he was not only
dying because of a misunderstanding on the part of the religious leaders and Romans, but
there had to be a theological reason for his death. There was involvement of God in his
unjust death.
According to J. Moltmann, the fate of Jesus was in the hands of his Father, but
his Father abandoned him. God the Father was greatly responsible for Jesus’ death
because Jesus was conscious of his close father-son relationship with his Father, and
asked him to intervene in his favour; however, his Father let him die in a horrible way.
Throughout his life Jesus called God “my Father” and on the cross he felt that his
Father was close to him, and that only his Father could save him. But his Father was
silent. If at his baptism the Father was there with him and spoke on his favour, by the
cross he seemed far away from his son and was completely silent. Jesus has identified
39
himself with God and has a direct relationship with him. Moltmann interprets Mark 15:
34, which is taken from Ps. 22:2, not in the context of the relation between God and
Israel, but in a new relationship between Jesus and his Father. Ps. 22:2 echoes the prayer
of Israel who called upon God not to forsaken his covenant with his people. Mark 15: 34
indicates a personal calling of Jesus to his Father. “My God” here is “my Father”; “me”
here is not Israel but Jesus, the only Son of the Father. Jesus’ counting on his Father is
more serious and more personal than Israel’s appealing to God. Jesus felt that on the
cross not only he suffered, but also his Father should know how much his Son was
suffering and must have felt for his only Son. Jesus had confidence that his Father would
act quickly, but he heard a silence of eternity. “My God, why hast thou forsaken me”?
Jesus meant to say “My Father, why have you forsaken me”? He identified himself so
intimately to his Father that his plea could have become “My Father, why hast thou
forsaken thyself?”1
According to Moltmann, we cannot understand the death of Jesus unless we
consider it the result of the decision of the Father of Jesus. It is a death of abandonment
by God. We need to explain this episode in terms of the Trinity and avoid the apathy
axiom resulting from the metaphysical tradition of Greek philosophy (God cannot
suffer).2 In terms of the Trinity, both the Father and the Son decided on the death of
Jesus: “the Father as the one who abandons and gives up the Son, and the Son who is
abandoned by the Father and who gives himself up.”3 It is Jesus who gives himself up
and the Father suffers with his Son (cf. Gal. 2: 20; Rom. 8: 32; Jn. 3: 16). The two suffer
because of love - love for one another and love for humankind.4 The key to correctly
understanding the death of Jesus on the cross is God’s ability to suffer. This is not fateful
1
2
Cf. ibid., p. 235-237.
3
J. B. METZ and J. MOLTMANN, Faith and the Future, New York: Orbis Books, 1995, p. 96; cf. p. 123-130.
See also The Crucified God, p. 251-253. For a further understanding of Moltmann’s theology of suffering
of God, see J. MOLTMANN, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, London: SCM Press, 1981, p. 21-60,
trans. by Margaret Kohl from the German, Trinität und Reich Gottes, Christian Kaiser Verlag, Munich
1980.
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Coming God, London: SCM Press, 1996, p. 126-127, trans by M. Kohl from the
German Das Kommen Gottes, Gütersloher: Chr. Kaiser Verlaghaus, 1995.
40
suffering, but a suffering that is the consequence of love. Moltmann argues that if God is
capable of loving, he must be capable of suffering.1
If there was misunderstanding on the part of human beings who condemned Jesus
to death on the cross, there was no misunderstanding on the part of the Father who let the
death of Jesus happen and participated in his suffering. But what is the Father’s purpose?
We cannot consider the person of Jesus as limiting within his activities and death, but
have to include his resurrection in the history of Jesus and understand Jesus’ death and
resurrection together within the context of the history of God’s dealings with the world.
We have to understand that the death of Jesus is not only an affair between him and his
Father, or between him and those who crucified him, but also a way the Trinity is to be
involved in the history of the Church and the world. In this way, we will be able to
understand why the Church was able to identify Jesus as the Christ who died and has
risen for us, and so the Church was able to acknowledge him as its foundation.
3. THE ESCHATOLOGICAL JESUS

“No Christ, no Church”. In saying this, Moltmann wants to indicate that the
historical and eschatological Jesus Christ is the foundation of the Church. One cannot
omit either the historical or eschatological aspect of Jesus. In the above sections, we have
heretofore tried to understand the life of Jesus in the historical context; in this section we
shall discuss his life from the context of his resurrection and the eschatological faith of
the first Christians who formed the primitive Church. In the light of the resurrection, the
first Christians recalled the history of Jesus and proclaimed it. However, in so doing, they
also expressed their faith. In other words, the proclamation of the primitive Church
regarding the Christ is its faith interpretation of Jesus’ history and teachings. Moltmann
puts it this way: “Primitive Christian recollections of Jesus were determined from the
start by the experience of his resurrection through God. That was the only reason why his
1
Cf. ibid., p. 127. Therefore, Moltmann reminds us of the teaching of patripassianism, also called
Sabellianism in the 3rd A.D, which was rejected by the council of Rome Tome of Damasus in 382: “If
anyone says that in the passion of the cross it is God himself who felt the pain and not the flesh and the soul
which Christ, the Son of God, had taken to himself - the form of servant which he had accepted as Scripture
says (cf. Phil. 2:7) - he is mistaken” (DZ. 166), cf. J. DUPUIS, ed., The Christian Faith, Bangalore, India:
Theological Publications, 1996, p. 195). In this sense, Moltmann says nothing against the teaching of the
council of Rome, which emphasizes that Jesus, with his flesh and soul, really suffered the passion of the
cross.
41
words and his story were remembered and why people were concerned with him.”1
Indeed, the first Christians recalled and interpreted the person of Jesus together with his
sayings and deeds in light of the resurrection.
Jesus was born; he preached, suffered and died on the cross. What do these events
in the life of Jesus mean for us today and what did they mean for the first Christians?
How did they interpret them? In fact, they interpreted them twice: once before and then
after his resurrection. Before his resurrection, people understood him as a failed religious
leader who drew great crowds to himself, a prophet who could work extraordinary deeds,
a rebel who could incite people, a great teacher who had a good knowledge of the Old
Testament and taught with authority, but just a human being. Without Easter people
would have forgotten Jesus. With their Easter faith, they started to look back to his life
and history; they remembered him and regarded him as the Christ. In other words, we
need to start from his resurrection if we want to understand his historical sayings and
deeds. The resurrection of Jesus provides the eschatological meaning of his life and
death, and it is the starting point of the Church’s faith in the Christ. As Moltmann says:
“God’s raising of Christ was the foundation for faith in Christ, and thus the foundation of
the Church of Christ as well.”2 But what is the nature of the resurrection of Jesus? How
did the first Christians acknowledge the fact of Jesus’ resurrection? Did the primitive
Church report it as historical fact or proclaim it in the form of kerigma? In answering
these questions, we will be able to know how the first Christians recognized and
acknowledged the resurrected Jesus as the Christ who is the origin of the Church.
In this section, we will also study the coming of the Christ, which is essential to
understanding the person of Jesus and his history properly. When we talk about the
coming of Christ, several aspects come to mind: first, the relation of the world with the
resurrected Jesus while waiting for the ‘last day’, secondly, his parousia, in which he will
judge all the living and the dead and gather all to himself; he will be proclaimed in glory.
This is “the key to understanding the history of Christ. Christ’s messianic mission, his
apocalyptic suffering and his eschatological resurrection from the dead would remain
incomprehensible fragments if we were not take into account the future ‘Day of the
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Crucified God, p. 165-166.
2
J. MOLTMANN, The Way of Jesus Christ, p. 213.
42
Messiah’, the future of the Son of man, the coming ‘Day of the Lord’, which is to say
Jesus’ parousia in the universal glory of God.”1 Moltmann complains that despite its
essentiality in the life of the Christ, his coming was overlooked and was not included in
Christology, but considered as part of eschatology. In this context, we will first study the
resurrection of Jesus as point of departure, then his coming, as part of his life.
3.1. Jesus rises from the dead

Throughout the history of Judaism, the subject of the resurrection had undergone
varied evolutions, and by the time of Jesus there were varied views. The Sadducees did
not believe in the resurrection. The Pharisees believed in the resurrection, but for them it
was the return to the condition of earthly life. There were also different opinions
regarding the resurrection of the individual and the general, the soul only and the whole
person. In the New Testament view, the resurrection is not the revivification of a dead
person (as happened to Lazarus), but is a radical transformation of a person into the
condition of perfect fulfillment.2
3.1.1. God’s promise of resurrection

The new Christian converts from Judaism certainly had recalled God’s
eschatological promises of raising the dead and had hope in their own resurrection, which
God already granted to Jesus as the ‘first fruit’. They also recalled Jesus’ promise of
granting everlasting life to those who believe in him. Their believing in the actual raising
of Jesus from the dead and their hope in the resurrection prompted them to acknowledge
the risen Jesus as the Christ. In this sense, Moltmann says: “But Christian eschatology
expounded and expressed the Easter experiences in recalling and taking up the earlier
promises and, in regard to Jesus himself, in recalling and taking up what had earlier been
promised and proclaimed. The Easter appearances are bound up with this eschatological
horizon, both in that which they presuppose and call to mind and also in that which they
themselves prefigure and provoke.”3 The hope of these primitive Christians, therefore,
surpassed that of the Old Testament. They now had hope in the person of Jesus and in the
1
Ibid., p. 316.
2
Cf. K. RAHNER, “Resurrection”in K. RAHNER (ed.), Encyclopedia of Theology, 3rd ed., London: Burns &
Oates, 1981, p. 1438-1442, at 1439, 1448; J. SCHMID, “Resurrection”in K. RAHNER (ed.), Encyclopedia of
Theology, p. 1442-1450,.at 1448.
3
J. MOLTMANN, Theology of Hope, p. 191-192.
43
event of his rising, and they acquired a foundation for their faith. “The raising of the dead
has already taken place in this one case for all, and that the raising was performed not on
one faithful to the law but on one who was crucified, and consequently future
resurrection is to be expected not from obedience to the law but from the justification of
sinners and from faith in Christ.”1
3.1.2. Jesus’ resurrection as a novum ultimum

St. Paul writes: “If Christ is not risen, then our preaching is in vain and your faith
is in vain” (I Cor. 15: 14). In fact, if Christ had not been raised, it would have meant that
we only have faith in a dead man. Traditionally, there was little dispute about the reality
of Jesus’ resurrection. Only in modern times has historical criticism brought it into
question. The basis of historical criticism is analogy, i.e., any claimed event must be
attested to as being in accord with the experience of past events. As result of this
historical criticism, the resurrection of Jesus is improbable because it does not correspond
to human experience. However, “the eschatological new event of the resurrection of
Christ, proves to be a novum ultimum both as against the similarity in ever-recurring
reality and also as against the comparative dissimilarity of new possibilities emerging in
history [...]. The resurrection of Christ does not mean a possibility within the world and
its history, but a new possibility altogether for the world, for existence and for history.”2
For those who support the validity of the resurrection as a historical reality have to face
not only the challenge of historical criticism but also of form-criticism. Form-criticism
does not question whether the resurrection reports were factual truths, but tries to find out
whether the Easter texts were the kerigma, which was the proclamation of the primitive
Church, expressed in forms which reflected the life of the Church in that period. If
historical-criticism wants to know how the resurrection actually happened, form-criticism
desires to know how the first believers experienced it and how they interpreted and
represented it in terms of their faith. According to Moltmann, historical criticism is
imperfect because while preoccupied with the reality of historically past events, it ignores
the future possibilities the past events generate. He says: “Anyone who describes Christ’s
resurrection as ‘historical’, in just the same ways as his death on the cross, is overlooking
1
Ibid., p. 193.
2
Ibid., p. 179.
44
the new creation with which the resurrection begins, and is falling short of the
eschatological hope.”1 Form criticism has its own critics too; while focusing on finding
the existential interpretation of past reports in order to represent them in a new way for a
new era, it fails to notice “that they are made possible by events which institute history
and provide the gateway to the historic character of existence.”2
How did they identify the Lord who appeared as risen with the crucified Christ?
One could not prove the resurrection of Jesus by analogy because there had not been
another resurrection before Jesus. Reference to empty tombs is not logical for proving
Jesus’ resurrection because it might be the result of various causes, such as removal, etc.
The Easter experience of the disciples has not and will not be repeated either. This
observation leads us to consider two notions: first, regarding the eyewitnesses, why and
how did they acknowledge that Jesus was raised from the dead? Secondly, concerning the
first Christians, why and how did they come to believe in his resurrection through the
testimonies of the disciples?
3.1.3. The recognition of the Lord resurrected

Moltmann says: “without the speaking and hearing of words it would have been
unlikely, indeed impossible, to identify the one who appeared with the crucified Jesus.
Without words spoken and heard the Easter appearances would have remained ghostly
things.”3 The possibility of identifying the one who appeared with the one who was
crucified “will have to be looked for in what is said by the one who appeared. What he
said must have contained something in the nature of a self-identification (It is I).”4 If
appearances were not accompanied by speaking and hearing, it would be an experience of
a ghost. In the same measure, if speaking and hearing were not accompanied by seeing,
one might say that it would not then be a person-to-person encounter. In this sense,
Moltmann says: “In the Easter kerigma, the Easter faith is constantly grounded in a
‘seeing.’”5 We should keep in mind that the seeing of Easter appearances might be
different from other seeing that everyone can have through normal sensory perceptions.
1
2
J. MOLTMANN, Theology of Hope, p. 189.
3
Ibid., p. 198.
4
Ibid., p.199.
5
45
In the Easter appearances, the visionaries “experience the appearance of God in his [their]
knowledge of God. It is the seeing of something which is given to someone to see. It is
therefore not the seeing of something which is always there. Nor is it a seeing that can be
repeated and can be verified because it can be repeated.”1 In the Easter appearances, the
visionaries experienced the Spirit, and the Spirit allowed the Christ to be recognized: “In
the seeing of the risen Christ, those who perceived him experienced the life-giving power
of the Spirit; and conversely, it is this quickening power of the Spirit which allows Christ
to be perceived, either through seeing or hearing.”2 However, the Easter experience of
Paul was different from that of the disciples, for it was without seeing. On another
occasion, recognizing the wounds of the one who appeared and identifying him with the
one who was crucified on Golgotha constituted the important element in acknowledging
the Christ: “Then he [Jesus Christ] said to Thomas ‘Put your finger here and see my
hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but
believe.’ Thomas answered and said to him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ ”(Jn. 20: 27-28).
Moltmann identifies two elements which constitute the Easter vision: (1) the eye-
witnessing that consists of speaking and hearing with or without seeing and (2)
recognizing the marks of crucifixion. These two elements allowed them a foretaste and
anticipation of the coming kingdom of God and the resurrection promised by God and
already revealed in Jesus.3
Regarding the elements of the Easter appearances, we also acknowledge that
seeing, speaking and hearing may not be the only elements involved in recognizing Christ
in the appearances, as in the case of Mary (cf. Jn. 20: 15) or the disciples on the road to
Emmaus (cf. Lk. 24: 13-30). In these two cases, there were other elements: Mary
recognized him after he called her by name, while the two disciples recognized him at the
breaking of the bread. These events indicate the visionaries’ recalling the personal
relationship they had with the historical Jesus. Furthermore, it might require the
recognition of the wounds of the one who appeared as the sign of continuity between the
crucified and the one who appears (cf. Lk. 14: 26-43, John. 20:27). On another occasion
just seeing, without speaking or hearing, was enough to recognize him (cf. Mt. 28: 6).
1
Ibidem.
2
J. MOLTMANN, The Spirit of Life, p.66.
3
46
Thus, considering all these facts, we have to conclude that it was God himself who chose
to whom, how and when to show the Christ. The Easter appearances involved the grace
of God and faith, and transcended historical criticism and human sensory perceptions. It
is the act of faith that responded to God, who initiated his revelation. “The experience of
the appearance of the crucified one as the living Lord therefore means for them the
experience of the nearness of God in the god-forsaken one, of the divineness of God in
the crucified and dead Christ”1 In this sense, Moltmann uses strong words to say that the
empty tomb, the Easter appearances were historically ascertainable, while the
resurrection remains unascertainable.2
3.1.4. Continuity in Jesus Christ’s history

By acknowledging the Christ through his Easter appearances, the disciples and the
women came to accept the fact that the Messiah did suffer and die, but now is alive. They
were able to reconcile the contradiction between his glory and the forsaken God. “The
fundamental event in the Easter appearances then manifestly lies in the revelation of the
identity and continuity of Jesus in the total contradiction of cross and resurrection, of
god-forsakenness and the nearness of God […]. The sole bridge of continuity between the
primitive Christian proclamation and the history and proclamation of Jesus himself is via
the raising of the one who was crucified. This is a continuity in radical discontinuity, or
an identity in total contradiction.” 3 They recalled what Jesus had said and were able to
translate the one who proclaimed into the one who is proclaimed. What Jesus said to
them regarding his suffering and death was considered part of his entire history: “The
identity of Jesus can be understood only as an identity in, but not above and beyond,
cross and resurrection, that is, that it must remain bound up with the dialectic of cross and
resurrection. In that case the contradictions between the cross and the resurrection are an
inherent part of his identity. Then the resurrection can neither be reduced to the cross, as
showing its meaning, nor can the cross be reduced to the resurrection, as its
preliminary.”4 With the grace of faith, the first Christians, therefore, are able to accept the
suffering Messiah and at the same time had hope in the resurrection which God had
1
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Way of Jesus Christ, p. 243
3
4
Ibid., p. 200.
47
promised. They could relate the death of Jesus to his glory, and thus, they proclaimed
what Jesus had proclaimed to them that: “Thus it is written that the Messiah would have
to suffer and rise from the dead on the third day” (Lk. 24: 46, cf. Lk. 24: 26).
Summarizing this section, we may come to understand that there is the beginning
of the Church only if there is faith in the Christ. So far, we have talked about the eye-
witnesses’ recognition and the first Christians’ acknowledgement of the Christ. We
should clarify two points on this subject: first, it is not the act of recognizing the one who
appeared, but the person of the Christ himself, including his earthly life, his death, his
history, his resurrection and his future that originated the Church. The act of recognition
of the Christ only prompted the first Christians to respond to the invitation of faith.
Secondly, there was a Church only because the first Christians acknowledged the
resurrected Jesus and had faith in God who raised him up.
3.2. The exalted Jesus Christ and his coming

Since his resurrection, Jesus has been exalted and his kingdom has been becoming
more fully realized. God has promised that Israel will be delivered and his people will be
restored (cf. Ps 14: 7), and the gospel of the kingdom of God will be preached to all
nations before the return of Jesus (cf. Mt. 24: 14, Jn. 14: 3, 28, Jn 5: 25). The primitive
Church lived in remembering the resurrected Jesus and in expecting his return. Without
hope in the fulfillment of the promise of the resurrection and without anticipation of the
parousia, the faith of the first Christians certainly would have faded.
The resurrection of Jesus and his Easter appearances motivated the first Christians
to hope for and anticipate his return and to live an anticipated life. In this sense, his future
coming is already present. Therefore, as we study the foundation of the Church, we
cannot omit the ‘future of Christ’. In this section we will discuss two points: (1) the
future of Jesus in the context of his presence in the Church and, (2) his parousia.
3.2.1. The future of Jesus

With the joy of Easter, the primitive Church looked back into the life and history
of Jesus; from the Easter it looked to his future. Thus, in the light of resurrection, the
historical Jesus is retrospectively interpreted as a self-giving Messiah for the world, and,
48
since he is now exalted, is an eschatological person who is the representative of the

coming God and precedence of his followers.1
Not only do we need to look at the early Church and inquire back into its
historical foundation, but also to talk about the eschatological Church, which is
becoming. In fact, the Church, by looking at the future Christ and talking about its own
future, recognizes the Christ as the representative of its coming.2 Thus, the present-day
Church, while in a mode of hope, remembers the past of Jesus and is open to his future.
In other words, at the same time it has to remember the historical Jesus and live in the
light of the eschatological Christ. “If the eschatological orientation is lost, then
remembrance decays into a powerless historical recollection of a founder at the beginning
of things. The Church can then itself take the place of hope, setting itself up as the
prolongation of his former incarnation, and the aim of its growth as being his parousia.
If, on the other hand, the Christological remembrance is lost, then the Church is filled by
other hopes, visions and aims, taken over from non-Christian movements, or Pentecost
pushes out Easter, and new experiences of the Spirit push out Christ.”3
Easter concerns not only Jesus himself but also the whole universe. Without the
resurrection, Jesus would have remained a private person, but with the resurrection he
became an archetype for humanity. His resurrection is anticipation and a beginning of the
general resurrection.4 With Easter, a new creation has dawned and death has been
overthrown. Jesus is already exalted in glory; therefore those who live under his influence
also celebrate the feast of freedom and joy.5 In fact, Jesus has not only changed the state
of humanity but also the condition of all creatures. He “exercises his lordship already by
sustaining and ruling the world. If all things were created ‘through him’, their existence is
sustained by him. They are for him, and they are waiting for him.”6
Moltmann wants to emphasize the future of Christ, i.e. his life after his
resurrection. The life of Jesus does not culminate with his resurrection, but with his
glorious return. In fact, the resurrection points to the exaltation, future, and parousia of
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 74.
2
Cf. ibid. p. 99.
3
Ibid. p. 75.
4
Cf. ibid., p. 98; The Crucified God, p. 166-167.
5
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power Spirit, p. 109.
6
49
Jesus. “The crucified Christ is understood in the light of his resurrection, and his
resurrection is understood in the light of his future in the coming God and his glory […].
‘Easter’ was a prelude to, and a real anticipation of, God’s qualitatively new future and
the new creation in the midst of the history of the world’s suffering.”1
The future of Jesus Christ has changed the world, and thus a better future for the
world has dawned. Paradoxically, this world future comprises its whole history, including
the past, the present, and the future. In other words, the newly changed past, the all
hopeful present, and the coming future constitute the world’s future; it is the effect of
Jesus’ future that retrospectively changes the whole universe. Indeed, the Easter hope
shines not only forwards into the future but also backwards over past history. The hope
for the resurrection is not only for those who will die but also for those who ‘have gone
before us’.2
As a matter of fact, the ultimate goal Christians hope for is the resurrection. They
anticipate their own resurrection, living their present Christian life, under Jesus’
dominion. “Consequently the new life under his influence cannot be understood merely
as new obedience, as a reversal of life’s direction and as an endeavour to change the
world until it visibly becomes God’s creation. It is also, and with equal emphasis,
celebrated as the feast of freedom, as joy in existence and as the ecstasy bliss.”3
Jesus had inaugurated his future and a future for a world motivated by the hope in
the resurrection. In this sense, Moltmann says: “Now the proclamation of the Easter
witnesses that God has raised the dead Jesus from the dead amounts to nothing less than
the claim that this future of the new world of the righteousness and presence of God has
already dawned in this one person in the midst of our history of death.”4
What has been said up to now is equally applicable to all Christians of the
primitive Church as well today’s and the future’s. The first Christians certainly recalled
the promise of Ps. 14: 7 and Dn. 12 regarding the restoration of Israel and the general
resurrection and saw the resurrection of Jesus as an anticipation of their own; thus they
1
2
Cf. ibid., p. 166.
3
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power Spirit, p. 109.
4
50
had reason and motivation for gathering into community to worship God and wait for the
parousia.
3.2.2. Parousia
Parousia means a coming event, i.e., the coming of Christ, described in the term
of an “advent”. It does not mean what is becoming, i.e., what will be, described in the
term “ futurum”. While what is becoming is changing and transient and will pass away,
what is coming is already present and intransient.1 “What will come according to the
Christian expectation of the parousia brings the end of time and the beginning of eternal
creation […]. Consequently, the parousia of Christ is not something that happens in
time.”2
The Nicene Creed professes that Christ will come again to judge the world.
Therefore, Christ’s return is part of our faith, for his parousia is an essential part of his
life. In order to understand the person of the Christ fully, one has to relate the death and
resurrection of Christ, on one hand, to his messianic mission and, on the other, to his
eschatological coming. He is the Messiah, the Son of man; on his return, he will be the
Lord of the universe.
“Christ’s resurrection and Christ’s parousia are saving ‘events’ too, since through
them the process of healing this world in its deadly sickness is completed.”3 How will he
appear on that day? Moltmann says he will appear bodily as the resurrected Christ: He
will appear bodily as he did at the Easter appearances. “His mortal human body was
transformed so that he now ‘lives’ in the body of glory which is wholly and entirely
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology, p. 23-26. See also The Way of Jesus
Christ, p. 317.
2
J. MOLTMANN, The Ways of Jesus, p. 317. Moltmann argues that if God created the world together with
time, as St. Augustine says, so the world will end together with time (cf. AUGUSTIN, De Civ. Dei XI, 6,
quoted by J. MOLTMANN, God in Creation: An ecological doctrine of creation, London: SCM Press, 1985,
p. 113, trans. by M. Kohl from the German Gott in der Schöpfung: Ökologische Schöpfungslehre, Munich:
Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1985). “There is a genuine, factual reason for this, because the moment in which time
enters eternity is the mirror-image of the moment when time issued from eternity” (J. MOLTMANN, The
Way of Jesus Christ, p. 328). Here Moltmann means that temporal time ends together with the world and
enters eternal time, and this eternity time of the new creation is relative, for it participates in the absolute
eternity of God (cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Way of Jesus Christ, p. 330).
3
J. MOLTMANN, The Way of Jesus Christ, p. p. 319.
51
permeated by the life-giving divine Spirit, and it is in this transfiguration that he

‘appeared’ and will appear.”1
He will come in glory and power to “bring peace to creation and drive out the
forces of chaos. When we are told that the Son of man will come from heaven and in the
clouds of heaven, what is saying first of all is that he will come ‘in the glory of the
Father’ (Mk. 13: 26), of the Creator and Judge of all things. This presupposes that
beforehand he ‘sat at the right hand of Power’ (Mk. 14: 62). He already participates in
God’s universal rule and can therefore eschatologically complete it.”2
This is encouraging both for those who practice conversion and for those who
have to face suffering, repression, and persecution. They look forward to the parousia
and hope for a favourable judgment. The Church is also open to the day of the coming of
the kingdom of God, when the Lord will come in glory. There have been different
reasons for the expectation of the coming of Christ. Some see it as revenge for those who
are maltreated, while others see it as compensation for those who are unlucky on earth.
These should not be the reasons for which one hopes for the parousia. The right motive
for this hope is rooted in the resurrection of Jesus, which is the beginning of his triumph.
Only with his return in glory will his goal be accomplished and will he be universally
manifested in the glory of God. His kingdom is realized and it will be the time for him to
hand it over to his father. The image of the last judgment and that of the glorified Christ
reflect two contrasting effects: one is frightening, the other is joyful. The day of the
parousia should be a joyful day. It is the day of the Lord when he, in glory, will be
recognized. Of course the final judgment will be rendered and justice will be done for the
living and the dead. Jesus Christ, the judge, has done and will continue to do many
favours for us. This will be the time for us to meet him face to face. This should be a
joyful day.3 “The crucified one will judge according to his gospel of the saving
righteousness of God, and according to no other law. He will not judge in order to punish
the wicked and reward the good, but so as to make the saving righteousness of God
prevail among them all. He will judge in order to raise up and to put things right.”4
1
Ibid., p. 257
2
Ibid., p.332.
3
Cf. ibid., p. 313-316.
4
Ibid., p. 314.
52
His return and judgment is the completion of his rule; it is a conclusion of the
economy of salvation. He rules until the end, when he destroyed the last enemy which is
death, then he will “hand over the kingdom to his God and Father” (cf. I Cor. 15: 20-28).
“Christ’s parousia therefore does not merely ‘unveil’ the salvific meaning of Christ’s
death. It also, and much more, brings the fulfillment of the whole history of Christ, with
all that it promises; for it is only with Christ’s parousia that ‘the kingdom that shall have
no end’ begins. It is only in Christ’s parousia that ‘all the tears will be wiped away’. It is
only in the parousia that Israel will be redeemed, and this ‘unredeemed world’ created
anew.”1
Therefore, in anticipating the parousia, the first Christians as well as those today
and of the future celebrate “the feast of freedom, as joy in existence”.2 Since the
resurrected Jesus is governing his kingdom which includes nature, at the end of time
when the Christ comes back, nature will also be transformed into a new creation. In one
sense, this new creation has already begun with the resurrection of Jesus. Together with
human beings, nature too anticipates the parousia, when the Lord will perfect all that was
created by God.
CHAPTER II. THE ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

In the first chapter, we studied the person and the history of Jesus Christ. By the
person and history of Jesus Christ, Moltmann means together all the aspects of his
historical existence in Israel, his death and resurrection, his exaltation and kingship, his
parousia, his relationship with his Father and the Holy Spirit, and his relationship with
the universe in the context of God’s dealings with the world. We have pointed out that
the first Christians believed in Jesus Christ because they could identify him with the
announced Messiah who would come to found a kingdom for the chosen people as
promised by God in the Old Testament. In fact, people had expected less than what Jesus
brought to them. They had waited for a temporal and earthly kingdom, while Jesus
inaugurated a permanent and eschatological one. They did not expect justice for sinners,
but Jesus brought justice for all, both the righteous and the unrighteous. People were not
1
Ibid., p. 319.
2
53
sure about the resurrection, but Jesus announced it, and indeed, he was raised from the
dead as prototype. The first Christians could see that the promise of the Old Testament
was fulfilled in the person of Jesus. Then the Good News brought about by Jesus began
to be realized, until his return, which they expected to happen soon. They anticipated the
parousia and gathered together to remember the Lord.
Thus, the Church has existed since the first gathering of the new people of God. It
is de facto; however, throughout the history of the Church people have raised the
question whether Jesus himself founded the Church. In this chapter, we will answer this
question. What is the involvement of Jesus and the role of the Holy Spirit in the
foundation of the Church?
1. THE MESSIAH AND THE BEGINNING OF THE CHURCH

When we say that the Church is the Church of Christ, we cannot help, or rather
we are prompted to raise the following questions: How did the Church come into
existence? What is the extent of the role of Jesus in the formation of the Church? Did
Jesus actually found the Church, as an institution and whether he left any guidelines for
the life, structure, administration, or mission of the Church?
1.1. Jesus Christ, the foundation of the Church

Enquiring into the origin of the Church of Christ, people from the beginning of
Christian history until today, especially in the age of the Enlightenment, have always
questioned how the Church came into existence. The general answer is that “Jesus must
somehow have founded Christianity.”1 However, to find a definite response as to whether
Jesus is the founder, the foundation, or the object of faith of the Church, continues to
remain a matter of controversy and thus inspires much effort by many theologians
seeking solutions. Therefore, in order to provide a spectrum of interpretation regarding
this topic, I will also study some other authors, alongside Moltmann.
One can say that Jesus is the founder of the Church in the sense that he “lays the
foundation stone without leaving behind any biding regulations about what should be
built on top of it, and how.”2 In this understanding, one can continue to build the Church
1
Ibid., p. 70.
2
Ibidem.
54
on the same foundation. J. Moltmann even says that one can deviate from this foundation.
In this perspective, the Church can change itself depending on different historical
contexts, as long as it maintains its mission, faith, and hope. Whatever the historical
context of the Church be, it is subject to change; when elements become inefficient they
can be discarded.1
Regarding the foundation of the Church, one cannot ignore the most explicit
scriptural verse in the Gospel of Matthew: “And so I [Jesus] say to you, you are Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Mt. 16: 18). We wonder whether Moltmann
unintentionally omits this biblical verse or intentionally ignores it. In any case, in my
opinion, in talking about the foundation of the Church, one has to discuss this gospel
passage. According to Maritain, one may interpret it in two different ways: in the first
interpretation, on the road to Caesarea Philippi, Jesus designated the foundation of the
Church, which is Peter, but had not actually founded it. The Church only came into
existence at the Pentecost. Its absolute foundation is the Incarnated Logos, but its
immanent foundation is Peter, who is not an individual person, but a public figure, who is
illumined by God the Father and is the confessor of the Christ. Jesus also determined the
form of its structure and administration when he instructed Peter to feed his lambs and
tend his sheep (cf. John. 21: 15-17) and to render service to others as Jesus did for him
(cf. John. 13: 4-7; 13: 12-15). According to the second interpretation, he laid the
foundation stone, which is Peter, but did not determine any definite form of structure and
administration. In this case, the two Gospel passages from John, mentioned above, are
not considered as guidelines for the structure and administration of the Church.2
On the topic of whether Jesus left any biding regulations regarding the form of
the structure and administration of the Church, Y. Congar did not hesitate in asserting
that Jesus did decide the way his Church should be. V. Dunne summarizes Congar’s idea
in these words: “ Jesus Christ both willed and instituted a community that has an inbuilt
structure, a community that is essentially apostolic and hierarchic. Baptism, the
1
Cf. ibidem.
2
Cf. J. MARITAIN, De l’Église du Christ, Bruges : Desclée De Brouwer, 1970, p. 112, 114-115, 118-119.
55
Eucharist, the preaching of the Good News and the Twelve are examples of some
structural elements which were constituted by Jesus the Incarnate Word.”1
Moltmann does not say openly what the foundation of the Church is, if Jesus laid
it down at all. According to him, if Jesus had laid the foundation of the Church, that
foundation would not have endured because the Church can diverge from it, for he did
not leave behind any regulation regarding its structure and administration. On the
contrary, Congar and Maritain say plainly that Jesus did lay the foundation of the Church.
For Maritain, Jesus himself is the absolute foundation of the Church.2
1.2. Jesus Christ, the founder of the Church

Regarding the founder of the Church, Moltmann quotes the Heidelberg
Catechism, question 54, which teaches: “the Son of God gathers, protects and upholds a
community of the elect destined for eternal life.”3 According to Moltmann, this statement
indicates two important things. Firstly, the Christ in his choosing, gathering and
protective activity creates the Church. Secondly, in contrast, Jesus only had the intention
of creating the Church as a brotherhood in view of obtaining eternal life, not as an
institution.4
If the Church regards itself as a religious institution established by Jesus, then
the role of Jesus is different from that suggested by the “foundation” model mentioned
above. This is the “founder” model. In this understanding, Jesus would have set the
guidelines for the Church and determined the form of its existence and administration.
Thus, the Church would have to follow the intention of its founder and should not diverge
from the foundation laid down by Jesus before his death. In other words, according to this
1
V. DUNNE, Prophesy in the Church. The Vision of Yves Congar, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2000, p.
52. Dunne cites Y. CONGAR, The word and Spirit, London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1986. p. 79f.
2
According to W. Kasper, Jesus is the foundation of the Church in the two senses that (1) the Church has to
attach to him in order to subsist and (2) that Jesus, with his earthly life of apostolate among his disciples,
his meals, particularly his last meal, is the pre-paschal vestigial ecclesiae, which became the post-Easter
foundation of the Church. Kasper referring to Lumen Gentium, n. 2-5, says that the Church is founded in
stages which “ extends to the entire activity of Jesus, earthly as well as exalted… It was established with
the Easter appearances and the mandate to preach and baptize grounded in those appearances (Mt. 28:19).
That means that the Church is in fact the apostolic Church, which must contain commissioned witnesses of
the Gospel (cf. Rom. 10:14ff.)” (W. KASPER, Jesus the Christ, Kent, Great Britain/ New Jersey, USA:
Burns &Oates/Paulist Press, 1976, p.158, trans by V.Green from the German Jesus der Christus, Mainz:
Matthias-Grunewald Verlag, 1974).
3
4
Cf. ibid., p. 69.
56
model, the Church, as an institution, has to live up to a legal act, upholding an unalterable
form of its essence and administration, determined by the last wish of its founder.
On whether Jesus did actually found the Church as an institution, there are
different opinions. Here I will study T. F. Torrance, J. Moltmann, H. Küng, and G.
Lohfink. T. F. Torrance says that during his public ministry Jesus chose the Twelve and
then the Seventy and instructed them in view of making them the first members and
leaders of the Church, so leaving the structure and form of the Church. “The records
make it clear that Jesus intended to leave behind a community with a structure and form
and leadership, a community with a ministry shaped on the pattern of his own, and that
while all men were called to be disciples and to engage in a ministry of witness to him,
some were given special responsibilities and a special commission of pastoral care over
his flock, endowed with an authoritative office to act in his name. The constituent
elements of the Church were all there, but now with the commissioning of the disciples as
Apostles, and the pouring out of the Spirit at the Pentecost the Church was given by its
risen Lord the permanent form which he intended it to take throughout history until he
came again.”1 Torrance wants to assert that Jesus had already founded the Church during
his earthly ministry and it was transformed at the Pentecost. “The Church did not come
into being with the Resurrection or with the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost. That
was not its birth but its new birth, not its beginning but its transformation into the Body
of the risen Lord quickened and filled with his Spirit.”2
According to Moltmann however, this “founder model”, is inadequate for the
Church because, as an institution, it would live only for the Christ of the past. On the
contrary, if Jesus has his future, and is becoming, the Church too cannot remain status
quo following the past intention of its founder; it needs to live in the present and future of
its founder, opening itself to the future.3 Moltmann emphasizes the coming of Christ as
part of the life of Jesus with reference to the foundation of the Church. In this view, the
Church does not have to bind itself to a temporal condition of the past, but it can also live
for the present and future. In this sense, the Church’s hope, which it gets from the
1
T. F. TORRANCE, “Foundation of the Church” in R. S. ANDERSON (ed.), Theological Foundations for
Ministry, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979, p. 213.
2
Ibid., p. 211.
3
57
resurrected Jesus, becomes essential in the life of the Church. J. Moltmann alleges that
neither the “foundation model” nor the “founder model” ever existed. He says that,
historically, Jesus did not act as the founder of a religion, nor did he establish any
Church, but only had the intention of founding a Church.1
We have seen that Moltmann denies Jesus’ direct act of founding the Church.
Along the same lines, H. Küng claims that the Church was formed only after the
resurrection of Jesus, with the following arguments. Firstly, Jesus always addressed
himself to the whole people of Israel and never merely to a small group separated from
the rest. His mission was to preach to all including both the just and the unjust. If he had
gathered only some people and neglected the rest, his mission would have not been
universal, which would have been contrary to his ethos. Even his close rapport with the
twelve disciples does not mean he founded an association. The twelve disciples were
representatives of the twelve tribes of Israel, and there were no specific norms that ruled
their “community life”. Secondly, Mt. 16: 18 “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and
upon this rock I will build my Church” was not a public declaration, and in saying it,
Jesus indicated a Church not in the present but in the future.2 According to H. Küng,
during Jesus’ lifetime, his disciples and those who welcomed the messages of Jesus did
not form a separated group from the rest of Israel, nor were they referred to as the new
people of God. The Church does not exist until Jesus is risen from the dead.
However, for Küng, the foundation of the Church already lay in the pre-Easter
teachings and ministry of Jesus: “Jesus, by his preaching and ministry laid the foundation
for the emergence of a post-resurrection Church.”3 His teachings were about the coming
of the reign of God and repentance and, as a consequence, those who believed formed an
eschatological messianic people in post-Easter time.
According to G. Lohfink, Jesus could not have founded a Church because the
Church, which was the chosen people of Israel, already existed since the Old Testament
times. Jesus only wanted to reassemble “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (cf. Mt. 10:
6) and reconstitute the dispersed Israel. He announced the beginning of the kingdom of
1
Ibid., p. 70-71.
2
Cf. H. KÜNG, The Church, New York: Sheed and Ward, 1967, p.73, trans. by Ray and Rosaleen
Ockenden from the German Die Kirche, Freiburg-Basle-Vienna: Herder, 1967.
3
Cf. ibidem.
58
God in which the people of God (Israel) took part. Other peoples are also invited to join
this kingdom, but only through the teaching of Israel. The chosen people, established
long before, were lost and dispersed, are then reassembled and will extend to other
peoples. Therefore, “the people of God” in the New Testament is not confined to a small
nation, but includes all those who repent and join the kingdom.1 Lohfink affirms that
what we call “the Church” today is nothing other than the community of those who
integrate into the people Jesus reunited and sanctified through his death. It is therefore
absurd to try to find out the time and history of the foundation of the Church.2
Summarizing this, we conclude that according to Torrance, Congar, and Maritain,
Jesus either directly laid foundations for the Church or founded it. According to Lohfink,
Jesus only reassembled the dispersed people of the Old Testament and this chosen people
will extend to all nations. According H. Küng and J. Moltmann, Jesus did not lay any
foundations for a religion, nor did he actually found the Church. Only after his death did
those who believe in him gather into a community, taking him and his teachings as
foundations for the formation of their Church. In other words, they considered him as the
author of their faith.
1.3. Jesus Christ, the author of faith

Moltmann claims that the Church existed from the moment the first Christians
had faith in Jesus Christ. If the faith of the Church in Christ is expressed in its
proclamation about Jesus, who is the Word of God, then faith and the content of kerugma
are one. “The name of Jesus (then) denotes the origin, the beginning or the establishment
of the Church’s proclamation [...]. Jesus’ faith then becomes the historical beginning and
fruitful prototype of the Christian’s faith. The continuing history of faith actually begins
with the faith which Jesus calls to life. Christology and ecclesiology then coincide in the
doctrine of faith.”3 In this sense, there is continuity between the ‘preacher’ and the
‘preached’, Jesus’ message and the proclamation of the Church.
Moltmann indicates that due to the presence of the eschatological Christ, the
Church came into existence when people, having faith in the risen Christ, gathered into
1
Cf. G. LOHFINK, L’Église que voulait Jésus, Paris : Cerf, 1985, p. 11, 21-24, 37-45, 79-81.
2
Cf. ibid. p. 11.
3
59
community to express their faith. In reality, having faith, expressing faith, and beginning
the Church coincide. In order to understand the life of the original Christian Community,
he relies on Acts 4: 31-35: “As they prayed, the place where they were gathered shook,
and they were all filled with the Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with
boldness. The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed
that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. With great
power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was
accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned
property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the
feet of the apostles, and they distributed to each according to need.” This remarkable
experience of the first Christian community arose out of its experience of the Christ in the
Spirit.
To serve the purposes of understanding the foundation of the Church, two factors
are drawn from this story. First, the resurrection of the crucified Jesus changed people’s
life. Once experiencing his presence, they felt abundance, for they had hope in him and in
new life, and they wanted to share with others the source of their joy by proclaiming the
resurrection of their Lord and sharing their possessions with others. “It is the resurrection
of the crucified Christ that opens up the fullness of life, eternally living life.”1 Secondly,
‘the community of believers was of one heart and mind’ because they experienced the
presence of the Christ. There was no more estrangement, discrimination, oppression or
humiliation, but fellowship. We can draw the conclusion that, with the experience of the
presence of the risen Christ, the first Christians actually became a community of faith,
joy, and unity. These three elements constituted a gathering into the Church of alienated
and disparate individuals.
Along the same line, H. Küng also says that the Church came into existence when
the first believers gathered together in faith: “As soon as men gathered together in faith in
the resurrection of the crucified Jesus of Nazareth and in expectation of the coming
consummation of the reign of God and the return of the risen Christ in glory, the Church
came into existence. Not in the pre-Easter period, but certainly in the post-Easter period,
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Source of Life. The Holy Spirit and the Theology of Life, London: SCM Press, 1997,
p. 105, trans. by M. Kohl from the German Die Qwelle des Lebens. Der Heilige Geist und die Theologie
des Lebens, Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser/Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 1997.
60
primitive Christianity speaks of the Church.”1 The first Christians gathered because they
had faith that was given by God: “At the same time the Church was from the first
moment of faith in the resurrection seen as something given by God.”2 In this sense,
Jesus is both the author of faith and object and center of faith.
To conclude this section, let’s see what can be analytically interpreted from
Moltmann’s two fundamental ecclesiological statements: “Without Christ, no Church”
and “there is only a Church if and as long as Jesus of Nazareth is believed and
acknowledged as the Christ of God.”3 These two statements clearly shed light on how the
Church had it’s beginning.
The first statement can mean either that Christ intentionally founded the Church,
and thus the Church would have not existed if Jesus had not founded it; or functionally
the Church would not exist or would cease to exist if Christ did not sustain it.
In analysing the second statement, we see that it implies three points with regard
to the Church’s formation and function. Firstly, the Church acknowledged its existence
only after admitting Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ of God. This recognition of its own
existence is post-Easter, for the “Christ” (of God) is the post-Easter title. Secondly, the
Church, as a subject, took an initiative in believing and acknowledging the Christ of God.
Although the first Christians took the initiative of recognizing the risen Jesus as the
Christ of God after experiencing the appearances and retrospectively interpreting the life
and history of Jesus, this very initiative results from the grace of God. Moltmann does not
talk about Jesus’ taking initiatives in founding the Church. Thirdly, it indicates the
function of the Church. It can mean either that people as individuals believed and
acknowledged Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ of God and thus gathered into the Church
of the people of God, or that the community of the first Christians in its function
recognized Jesus Christ as its source, and therefore continues to exist and function,
otherwise ceasing to exist. Both possibilities indicate the function of the Church. At any
rate, we cannot distinguish the act of recognizing the Christ and having faith in him, or
having faith in him and the act of gathering. All coincided and are the gift of God.
1
H. KÜNG, The Church, p.75.
2
Ibidem.
3
61
The studies of the foundation of the Church of J. Moltmann and that of H. Küng
are very similar, as to both content and developmental format; they analyze the subject in
three parts: Jesus as foundation, founder, and author of faith.1 Both Küng and Moltmann
argue that the whole history of Jesus was involved in the origin of the Church. Küng
asserts that “it was not any particular words of Jesus, nor ultimately his preaching, but his
person as the hidden Messiah and as the risen Christ, which historically speaking
constitutes the roots of the Church.”2 He explains in detail that Jesus did not found the
Church at a pre-Easter moment, but that his entire life and history constituted the
beginning of the Church: “The origins of the Church do not lie solely in the intention and
the message of Jesus in the pre-Easter period, but in the whole history of Jesus’ life and
ministry: that is, in the entire action of God in Jesus Christ, from Jesus’ birth, his ministry
and the calling of the disciples, through his death and resurrection.”3
Since Moltmann opposes any idea that solely Jesus’ act of founding or laying
foundations would be sufficient constituents for the origins of the Church, he would
agrees with H. Küng that the Christ as a whole, i.e., his earthly activities, his history, his
suffering and death, constitutes the foundation of the Church. However, Moltmann goes
further than Küng, emphasizing the aspect of Jesus’ becoming as part of his whole person
and history. Both two great theologians agree that the Church began to exist in post-
Easter time.
2. THE CROSS OF CHRIST IS THE SOURCE OF THE CHURCH

We have a general idea that the Church began to exist due to the events of Jesus
Christ’s life; however, the specific event that constitutes the true origin of the Church is
“the self-giving of Christ unto death upon the cross.”4 When talking about the first
gathering of the first Christian community, we think of Pentecost, but Pentecost
necessarily leads us to Easter, and Easter points to Good Friday when Jesus was crucified
on the cross. Indeed, “the Church obtains its life and its unity from the cross of Christ.”5
The first Christians believed in Jesus and retrospectively reinterpreted his death
1
Since Küng wrote on this subject in 1967, eight years before Moltmann did (1975), I wonder whether
Moltmann was influenced by Küng, although Moltmann did not refer to him.
2
H. KÜNG, The Church, p. 76.
3
Ibidem.
4
J. MOLTMANN, The Open Church, p. 85.
5
Ibidem.
62
on the cross in light of the resurrection. What is the significance of the cross of Jesus in
light of this resurrection?
As St. Paul says: “Christ died for us” (Rom. 5: 8); the first meaning of the
suffering and death of Jesus is the expiatory offering for our sins. “Only in the light of his
resurrection from the dead does his death gain that special, unique saving significance
which it cannot achieve otherwise, even in the light of the life that he lived.”1 His death
would have no meaning, were it not accompanied by his resurrection. The interpretation
of the effect of the death of Jesus as expiation implies that man can only achieve his own
righteousness through Jesus, who takes the place of man and, by the merit of his death,
makes it possible for man to enter into communion with God. However, aside from
expiation, the death of Jesus also has an eschatological effect. In truth, Jesus died not
only to become an expiatory offering for us but also to “give us a share in his new life of
resurrection and in his future of eternal life.”2 The death of Jesus signifies for humanity
an anticipation of the general resurrection. In anticipating and preparing for the coming
resurrection, men and women are open to the future, engaging in the event of liberating
love, which will replace suffering and death by happiness and resurrection. With this
conviction, the first Christians gathered into the primitive Church to worship and look
forward to the parousia.
The cross of Jesus is the strength of the Church. The primitive Church had to
suffer persecution right from the moment of its birth, but it was strengthened because the
crucified Jesus maintained solidarity with it. The first Christians were not disheartened by
suffering. On the contrary, they felt that carrying the cross was naturally the condition of
being disciples of Jesus. Indeed, Jesus said: “Whoever does not take up his cross and
follow after me is not worthy of me” (Mt. 11: 38). Taking up the cross oneself and
following Jesus means living for Jesus and sharing his cross with him; it implies not
living for oneself but for others. Jesus identified others with himself, and he considered
that whatever we do for others, we do indeed for him: “Whatever you did for one of these
least brothers of mine, you did it for me” (Mt. 25: 40). St. Paul developed these
declarations of Jesus into a theology of the cross when he says that sharing in Christ’s
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Crucified God, p.187.
2
Ibid., p. 191.
63
suffering is the nature of every Christian and of the Church: “We are afflicted in every
way, but not constrained; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not
abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying about in the body of the
dying Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our body. For we who live
are constantly being given up to death for the sake of Jesus” (2Cor. 4: 8-11). Moltmann
wants to apply the theology of the cross of St. Paul in the daily life of Christians in the
context of society’s suffering, and accordingly calls for solidarity and liberation. For him,
sharing with Christ’s suffering involves fellowship and solidarity with those who are
under the gloom of hardship: “Fellowship with the crucified Jesus is practiced where
Christians in solidarity enter the brotherhood of those who, in their society, are visibly
living in the shadow of the cross: the poor, the handicapped, the people society has
rejected, the prisoners and the persecuted.”1 Thus, “the Church is called to life through
the gospel of Christ’s self-giving. Hence it is fundamentally born out of the cross of
Christ.”2
The Church can find and understand its origin only when it shares in Christ’s
sufferings by taking part in Christ’s mission. Its sharing in Christ’s sufferings is its
participation in the history of God’s dealings with the world, when participating in
liberating creation, in uniting men with one another, men with nature, and creation with
God, and in sharing in the history of God’s suffering and joy. The joy of God and of the
Church also has an eschatological character, i.e., it is already present with the presence of
suffering and will be fully complete at the end-time.
The Church participates in the history of God’s dealings with the world. God uses
the Church as one element of his entire movement in the world, and the Church discovers
its role when it participates in God’s relationship with the world. For this reason, the
Church cannot consider itself the center of God’s story of salvation. “It then has no need
to look sideways in suspicion or jealousy at the saving efficacies of the Spirit outside the
Church; instead it can recognize them thankfully as signs that the spirit is greater than the
Church and that God’s purpose of salvation reaches beyond the Church.”3 The Church is
founded for the purpose of rendering service to God’s plan of soteriology; it itself cannot
1
2
Ibidem.
3
Ibid., p. 65.
64
determine the course of action but follows the guidance of the Spirit. In short, the Church
is founded in the history of God’s dealings with the world; it can find its origins only in
participating in the cross of Jesus Christ and in solidarity with the suffering world.
3. THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE FORMATION OF THE CHURCH

At Easter, the first Christian community, comprising men and women Jesus
appeared to, had already received the Holy Spirit in the sense that it is the Holy Spirit
who allowed them to recognize the risen Lord; at the appearances, Jesus himself gave
them the Holy Spirit when he said to them “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20: 22).
Furthermore, Jesus said to his disciples: “The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father
will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you”
(John 14: 26), and he told his disciples to remain in Jerusalem and he would send the
promise of the Father upon them (cf. Lk. 24: 49), which took place on Pentecost.
Therefore, we can say that the Holy Spirit had an important role in beginning the first
Christian community. In this sense, Moltmann writes: “The men and women who saw the
risen Christ because he appeared to them personally, also received the Spirit of the
resurrection […]. True Easter faith is the work of the Spirit, for believing in Christ’s
resurrection doesn’t mean affirming a historical fact […], it means being seized by the
life-giving Spirit […]. There is no Pentecost without Easter. That is obvious. But there is
no Easter without Pentecost either.”1
At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit testified to Jesus (cf. John 15: 26), taught the
disciples and illumined them so they could recall everything Jesus had told them.
Because they let the Holy Spirit seize them, they were able to believe in the resurrection,
for which there was, hitherto, no analogy. Thus their Easter faith motivated them to
gather into the first community. Easter faith is the foundation of the first Christian
Church. Without this faith, the first Christians would not have come together. There is no
separation between Easter faith and the formation of the first Church community, and
there is no Easter faith if there were no receiving of the Holy Spirit.
Although Moltmann puts more emphasis on how the Holy Spirit has been acting
in the Church throughout its history to present, and does not accentuate the role of the
Holy Spirit in founding the Church, we do find a very important passage regarding the
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Source of Life, p. 16.
65
joint influence of Jesus and the Holy Spirit on the disciples. “In the seeing of the risen
Christ, those who perceived him experienced the life-giving power of the Spirit; and
conversely, it is this quickening power of the Spirit which allows Christ to be perceived,
either through seeing or hearing.”1
Because Jesus sent the Holy Spirit from the Father to his disciples, and the Holy
Spirit enabled them to recognize Jesus as the Christ, the founding of the Church was a
Trinitarian operation. Moltmann says here: “[Jesus], from being an object of the Spirit’s
activity, becomes the subject of the sending of the Spirit on the Church. In sending the
disciples out into the world with the mission of his Father, the risen Christ gives them the
Holy Spirit (John 20: 21f.). It is through the risen Christ that God pours out the Holy
Spirit (Titus 3:5f).”2 We can say firmly that if Jesus had not sent the Holy Spirit there
would not be a Church, and conversely if the Holy Spirit had not opened the disciples’
minds and hearts they would not have been able to perceive the risen Lord. Indeed, the
“Spirit whom the disciples experience, and with them the community of believers, bears
the impress of Christ. Through the Spirit they enter into Christ’s saving and life-giving
fellowship. In the experience of the life-giving Spirit they recognize Jesus as the Lord of
God’s rule.”3
In his book The Spirit of Life, in mentioning the Encyclical Dominum et
Vivificantem (1986) of Pope John Paul II, Moltmann indicates that the departure of Jesus
was necessary for the coming of the Holy Spirit upon his disciples. The death of Jesus
was not the end but a beginning of the era of the Holy Spirit, who continued the work of
salvation and revelation of Jesus in the same plan of the history of God’s dealings with
the world.4 We can see that with the coming of the Spirit the time of the Church began.5
CONCLUDING REMARKS OF PART I

In concluding part I, I will critically summarize and analyze how the Church was
eschatologically founded in Jesus Christ in relation to the work of the Holy Spirit.
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Spirit of Life, p. 66.
2
J. MOLTMANN, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, London: SCM Press, 1981, p. 122-123, translated by
M. Kohl from the German Trinität und Reich Gottes, Munich: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1980.
3
4
Cf. ibid., p.69-70. See POPE JOHN PAUL II, Dominum et Vivificantem, n. 24.
5
Cf. ibid., n. 25-26.
66
Moltmann’s primary book on ecclesiology The Church in the Power of the Spirit
shows that the Holy Spirit is acting in the Church from its beginning until the return of
Jesus. In fact, the Holy Spirit had an important role in the formation of the Church. If the
beginning or the first gathering of the Church coincides with its birth, we can then say
that the Holy Spirit’s presence at the first gathering of the Church also means his
presence at the birth of the Church. In other words, since the Church is a community, its
formation necessarily involved gathering, and the Holy Spirit was present in the Church
from the first moment of its existence.
The Holy Spirit was present in the Church since its first gathering in order to
guide and sustain it. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit also illumined the first disciples and
Christians, even before their first gathering, so that they might be able:
- to identify Christ at the appearances with Jesus of Nazareth,
- to eschatologically interpret the deeds, words, and history of Jesus
retrospectively,
- to recall the Old Testament promise and see its accomplishment in the person of
the Christ,
- to perceive Jesus Christ not as a political leader or lawgiver, but as the Messiah,
the anointed one, sent by God to his people,
- to anticipate the kingdom of God and parousia by gathering in worship.
In pointing to the acts of these first Christians, who were influenced by the Spirit,
we understand that the process of attaining faith is the condition for the formation of the
Church, centred on the person of Jesus Christ. The Church is the Church of Christ. That
is why Moltmann quite rightly says: “Without Christ, no Church”; “There is only a
Church if and as long as Jesus of Nazareth is believed and acknowledged as the Christ of
God.” The first statement specifies the foundation of the Church, while the second
implies a process of knowing and acknowledging the Christ as the condition for the
Church’s formation and existence. This process evolves around the person of Jesus
Christ.
If the first Christians had not recognized Jesus Christ as the Messiah, they would
have not gathered into the Church. In order to be able to recognize Jesus Christ as the
67
Messiah, they, on the one hand, had to rely on the grace of God and their faith1, and on
the other hand had to interpret the non-analogical events of Jesus’ life insofar as those
events were logical to them. As a result, they could recognize Jesus as divine and human,
the Messiah, and the Son of God.
The term “Messiah” in Hebrew or “Christ” in Greek either means “anointed one”
in the Old Testament or “the awaited Savior” in earliest Christian times. Both meanings
did not necessarily entail a divine person, for even a human being set aside by God could
be considered a Messiah. Therefore, recognizing Jesus Christ as both human and divine
was the grace of the revelation of God and of Jesus.
Questions have been raised as to when the Father revealed the identity of Jesus:
when Jesus became the Son of God, when he became aware of his divine sonship, or
when people recognized him as the Son of God and the Messiah in the new sense. In
answering these questions, we are able to find out the moment of the birth of the Church.
Although some, such as Peter, John the Baptist, and Nicodemus might believe in an ill-
defined manner that Jesus was “the one who was to come” or the Messiah, they did not
yet gather into a Church. The Church began to exist only when the Holy Spirit illumined
both men and women who were gathering to perceive Jesus of Nazareth and have faith in
him, who lived, was dead, but was then raised up, ascended into heaven, and will come
again, as the Messiah, the Christ of God.
According to Moltmann, Jesus did not lay a foundation for the Church with a
specific form of structure and administration, nor did he historically found a Church
during his earthly life, but his whole person, life, and history (including his future)
constituted the faith of the first Christians who gathered as the Church community and
proclaimed Jesus Christ, the content of their faith. When we talk about the foundation of
the Church, we cannot limit our discussion only to its founding act or birth, but must also
include its sustenance.
1
68
PART II. THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST

Because Jesus Christ is the foundation and the hope of the Church, the Church is
not its own Church or of any other entity but Christ’s. The Church therefore has to
subject itself to the sole Gospel of Christ as its yardstick. “It is only where Christ alone
rules, and the Church listens to his voice only, that the Church arrives at its truth and
becomes free and a liberating power in the world.”1 In other words, because only Jesus
Christ is the sole Lord of the Church, the Church cannot serve its own interest but the
interest of its Lord, Jesus Christ. To apply this principle of the lordship of Christ, the
Church needs to serve the interest of all its members who subordinate themselves to the
lordship of Christ.2 Furthermore, because the Church is the Church of Christ, it has to live
in the midst of the world and render service to make the world better in view of the
coming kingdom of God. It needs to have appropriate theological concepts regarding its
political and social relationship with the world.3
In this context, some important questions are raised: what is the Church of Christ?
Do all Churches belong to the Church of Christ? Can there be a Church that is not of
Christ? What are the criteria for recognizing the true Church and where can we find
them? A study of the marks of the Church will help answer these questions. The subject
of hope in light of the ecclesiology of Moltmann, considered as an impetus of the life and
mission of the Church, will help us understand the nature of the Church of Christ present
in the midst of the world.
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p.5.
2
Moltmann considers that theologians play an important role in influencing the Church’s structure and
policy; they work for the sake of each and every Christian. Theology has to consider, as its priority, the
function of Christ’s lordship and interest; the function of the Church is only secondary. Therefore, the
Church needs to allow Christian theology freedom to criticize when it fulfils its service to the benefit of
Jesus Christ in the fellowship of the Church (cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 6-
7).
3
The Church of Christ serves all its members both as individuals and communities. We will see later in the
‘Part III’ of this research that the Church also serves all people in the world.
69
CHAPTER I. THE MARKS OF THE CHURCH

In 381, the Nicene-Constantinople Council confessed four elements1 of the
Church: one, holy, catholic and apostolic.2 These four elements3 are credo marks and
considered as indispensable in the profession of faith. The Council wanted to base itself
on these four elements as criteria for distinguishing the true Church from false ones with
regard to heretics present at that time. These criteria are also the premises for the
fellowship between the Christian Churches, and they can be considered as the signs or
characteristics of the Church, by which it can be recognized in the world. The question
regarding the criteria for recognizing the true Church has been raised even more since the
second millennium with the presence of many Churches in Christianity. In spite of many
different Churches and many changes in the form of the Church, the Church considers
these four elements unchangeable. They constitute the basic structure of the Church.
These Church characteristics are acquired from the characteristics of the activities
of Jesus Christ. The Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic because Jesus’ mission
has the characteristics of uniting, sanctifying, comprehending and commissioning all
1
Unity, Holiness, Catholicity and Apostolicity are called attributes by a majority of authors, including
those mentioned here. Besides, J. Moltmann also calls them the marks of the Church. W. Pannenberg adds
the adjective “essential” to these attributes. H. Küng calls them the dimensions of the Church, while Y.
Congar calls ‘apostolicity’ the property of the Church. Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the
Spirit, p. 137; W. PANNENBERG, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998, p. 405, trans by
G. W. Bromiley from the German Systematische Theologie, Band 3, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1993; H. KÜNG, The Church, New York: Sheed and Ward, 1967, p. 261; Y. CONGAR, L’Église une, sainte,
catholique et apostolique (Mysterium Salutis 15), Paris: Cerf, 1970, p. 182.
2
Why did the Council put the four marks in this order? Without citing any reason, Moltmann treats these
four marks in a different order: one, catholic, holy and apostolic. For most authors, the council did it
intentionally. Pannenberg says that the mark of the unity comes first because of Jesus’ act of uniting people
into the Church. However, there is also an indissoluble link between the mark of unity and that of holiness.
One needs to keep in mind that these four marks imply one another. Cf. W. PANNENBERG, Systematic
Theology, vol. 3, p. 405-406.
3
We should note that the Apostle’s Creed (symbolum apostolorum), based on the Old Roman Creed written
before 190 A.D., is so called only since the fourth century. It contains only two marks: holiness and
catholicity. Rufinus (345-410), writing comments on the symbolum apostolorum, mentioned only one
mark: holiness, which conforms to the Old Roman Creed. Therefore, we can say that the form of the
Apostle’s Creed that we have today was evolved and finally defined later than the fifth century (probably
around the sixth century), when the second mark, catholicity, was added. The Nicene-Constantinople Creed
was composed between the time of the Council of Nicea (321) and the Council of Constantinople (381), or
according to modern theologians, before the Council of Calcedon (451), cf. CAYRE, F., Manual of
Patrology and History of Theology, vol.1, Tournai: Desclée, 1935, p. 37-42, trans. from the French Précis
de Patrologie et d’histoire de la Théologie, Paris: Desclée, 1927.
70
people. The Church is one not because it unites all its members, but because Jesus Christ
unites all in his Church. The Church is holy not because its members are holy, but
because Jesus sanctifies it and its members. The Church is catholic because his lordship
extends to all space and time. Finally, the Church is apostolic because Jesus commissions
it to teach and serve the world.1
Because we live in a time when awareness of Christian pluralism is more evident,
questions regarding the history and meaning of the Church’s marks become more
consequent. What are the meanings that the Council Nicene-Constantinople attributed to
these marks? Can these marks of unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity be
yardsticks for recognizing the true Church? Or can a pseudo-Church also have these
marks? Moltmann refers back to Scripture in order to find the answers. What are the
scriptural meanings of the four marks and their evolution? The first evident scriptural
indication is that the four marks indicate the truths of the Church not only at present but
also at its plenitude. They have an eschatological and messianic character. The Church’s
unity first of all is a statement of hope. On the last day the Messiah will gather all his
people and unite them in one flock. The holiness of the Church is part of the coming
glory of God. The Church partakes the holiness of the new creation, which will be fully
holy on the day of the return of the Messiah, when he will present the holy ones to his
Father. The Church of catholicity is open to the coming kingdom, which comprises the
whole world, encompassing its entire history in time and space. Finally, the messianic era
has begun, and the Church takes part in it, setting sights on the harvest day. The Church’s
apostolate continues until the end.2
1. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH

In efforts at uniting the Churches, questions regarding the history and meaning of
the mark of “unity” cannot be overlooked. Throughout history and in the context of
pluralism today, can the “Church’s unity” have a different significance from that intended
by this Council Nicene-Constantinople? How do the Churches interpret the reality of
Christian pluralism? What are their concerns about the possibility of Christian union?
1
2
Cf. ibid., p. 339.
71
Can many denominational Churches remain separated from one another as of today but at
the same time hold the mark of “unity”?
It is evident that from the beginning of the twentieth century most Christian
communities have felt the burden of Church division and yearned for Christian unity. The
Catholic Church with Vatican Council II, and the Protestant Churches and Orthodox
Churches with the World Council of Churches, have taken initiatives to work for
Christian unity. In fact, many Churches have come together for dialogue. However, we
can observe that, for some people, the unification of Churches seems to be unachievable
and they are tempted to say that Church unity has an eschatological character, i.e., it will
come to plenitude only at the end of time. They are ready to accept the present condition
of church division. They say that the Church’s unity first of all is a statement of hope. On
the last day the Messiah will gather all his people and unite them in one flock. On the
contrary, there are also many, more optimistic people who have witnessed the progress of
the ecumenical effort in many Churches. Indeed, probably, the most noticeable
innovation in Christianity during the last century is the movement of ecumenism, which
has already shown its fruit. In the third millennium, hope for Christian unity should
continue to be prevalent.1
Unification of the Churches is a real possibility in the beginning of the third
millennium. What is truly the source and foundation of the Church’s unity and what are
the Churches going to do in order to unite in one Church of Christ in such a public way
that the world recognizes it as the Church of Christ? The Churches and the ecumenical
movement can find the foundation of the Church’s unity in the Trinity and in Jesus
Christ.
1.1.Trinitarian unity
Jesus prayed for Church’s unity, referring to the Trinitarian unity: “Holy Father,
keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are…
So that they may be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you… So that they may be
one, as we are one…” (John. 17: 11, 21-22). Vatican Council II, quoting the Fathers of
the Church in Lumen Gentium, relates the unity of the Church to the Trinitarian unity:
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Christianity in the Third Millennium” in Theology Today 51, 1994, p. 75-89, at 76-
77.
72
“Hence the universal Church is seen to be a people brought into unity from the unity of
the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”1 Moltmann, too, in relating the Church’s unity to
the unity of the Triune God, using the concept of perichoresis,2 says that “the divine
persons exist not only with and for each other but also in each other: the Son in the
Father, the Father in the Son, the Spirit in the Father and in the Son;”3 thus, the unity of
the divine persons is the perfect unity. He discounts both the ‘unity of substance’
(homousios) and ‘unity as the identical divine subject’, and prefers the terms “the
unitedness, the at-oneness” of the triune God. He argues that “only the concept of
unitedness is the concept of a unity that can be communicated and is open.”4 Moltmann
interprets further that the perichoretic unity of the triune God is not closed and exclusive,
but inclusive and open to humanity and the world.5
If according to Moltmann, the unity of the triune God is open to the World, it is
not enough to say that the Church’s unity follows that model of the triune God’s unity,
1
VATICAN II, Lumen Gentium, n. 4; cf. ST. CYPRIAN, Treatise I, on the unity of the Church, in Ante-Nicene
Fathers, vol. V, p. 421-429. All patristic texts cited in this thesis are from the American Edition of the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, published by Hendrickson Publishers in 1994 in the
United States of America (originally published in the United States by the Christian Literature Publishing
Company or Charles Scribner’s Sons between 1885 and 1900).
2
“Pericoresis” is a Greek term (περιχώρησις), which means co-indwelling and co-inhering. The Fathers of
the Church and theologians use this term to describe the relationship within the Trinity. This is not a
relation between the Trinitarian Persons to and with one another, but in one another. According to the
pericoretic relationship “the Divine Persons mutually contain and interpenetrate one another while
completely retaining their incommunicable differences as Father, Son and Holy Spirit” (T. F. TORRANCE,
Trinitarian Perspectives, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994, p. 33). For an elaborate study on the subject of
perichoretic unity of the Trinity, see further in this work of Torrance, especially, p.32-33, 120-121, 139-
142. Torrance cites a list of patristic texts: HILARY, De Trinitate 3:1-4; 4:10; 9:69; GREGORY NAZIANZEN,
Oratio 2:36; 18: 42; 22: 4; 23:8; 25:16; 26:19; 29:2; 31:6-9,14, 16; 40:4.
3
J. B. METZ and J. MOLTMANN, Faith and the Future, p. 143; cf. J. MOLTMANN, Experiences in Theology,
London: SCM Press, 2000, p. 321-323, trans. from the German Erfahrung theologischen Denkens,
Gütersloh: Christian Kaiser Verlag/Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2000; History and the Triune God, New
York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1992, p. 57-60, trans. by J. Bowden from the German In der
Geschichte des dreieinigen Gottes. Beiträge zur trinitarischen Theologie, Munich : Christian Kaiser
Verlag, 1991.
4
J. MOLTMANN, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, p. 150.
5
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “The Unity of the Triune God” in St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, vol. 28,
1984/3, p. 157- 171, at 169. See also J. MOLTMANN, “The Fellowship of the Holy Spirit - Trinitarian
Pneumatology” in Scottish Journal of Theology 37, 1984, p. 287-300, at 294. Y. Congar also says that the
unity of the divine persons does not exclusively close up within them, but is “inclusively open to all
creation.” He elaborates this view of the extension of the unity of God into humanity: “The primary
principle of the unity of the Church and the fundamental reason of its unity are found in the unity and
oneness of God. But this unity first of all reflects in the unity of human nature already seen in the plan of
the unity of the world” (Y. CONGAR, L’Église une, sainte, catholique et apostolique, p. 14, trans. mine).
See also Y. CONGAR, Sainte Église, Paris : Cerf, 1963, p. 110f.
73
but it is also right to say that the Church’s unity can participate in the unity of the triune
God. In fact, according to Moltmann, the Church itself cannot realize its own unity, but
has to find it in the Trinitarian unity. As the Trinity members unite in each other, so the
Church’s unity also participates in this perichoretic unity: “In reality the unity of the
Church lies in the Trinitarian fellowship of God himself, which it reflects and in which it
participates.”1 Moltmann explains further that it is not the relationship within the Trinity
with and for one another that is reflected in the Church’s unity, but the unity in each other
that reproduces it: “The community of Jesus’ friends is meant to correspond to the
perichoretic community of the Father and the Son. It is not the persons of the Trinity and
their relations, but their perichoretic community that has its effect and is reproduced in
the community of Jesus.”2 In this sense, the community of the people of God, uniting
both with and in God, unite with one another as Moltmann says: “The fellowship of the
disciples with one another has to resemble the union of the Son with the Father. But not
only does it have to resemble that Trinitarian union; in addition it has to be a union within
this union. It is a fellowship with God and, beyond that, a fellowship in God.”3
According to Moltmann, therefore, the best way of understanding the triune
God’s unity is as perichoretic unity, which is open to the Church and the world. With this
understanding, the Church is called to follow the model of Trinitarian unity. Moltmann
suggests the following practices for the Church: There will be no more domination within
the Churches; within the Church democratization and decentralization are encouraged; all
members, male and female, are equal in the Church. These are the visible signs of the
Church’s unity, which follows the example of Trinitarian unity.4
Moltmann prefers the Church’s unity according to the model of Trinitarian unity
and opposes the form of the Church’s unity as monarchical unity, which entails
hierarchy. He bases himself on the teaching of St. Paul “There are different kinds of
spiritual gifts but the same Spirit; there are different forms of service but the same Lord;
there are different workings but the same God who produces all of them to everyone. To
each individual the manifestation of the Spirit is given for common benefit.” (I Cor. 12:4-
1
J. MOLTMANN, “The Fellowship of the Holy Spirit - Trinitarian Pneumatology”, p. 294.
2
Ibidem.
3
J. MOLTMANN, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, p. 95-96.
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “The Inviting Unity of the Triune God” in Concilium 177, 1985/1, p. 50-58, at 57.
74
7) to argue that the Church’s unity depends on the contribution of each member with
his/her own gifts, while the model of monarchical unity restrains the freedom of
contribution of each member.1 Moltmann says further: “There is no question here (cf. I
Cor. 14:26) of a hierarchical order which distinguishes between priests and laity, for
‘God is not a God of subordination but of peace’ (I Cor. 14:33), and this peace is won and
preserved only through love.”2
Moltmann also says that the Church needs to understand the unity of the divine
persons soteriologically. The Church participates in the history of God’s dealings with
the world. The Father partakes in all aspects of the life of the Son: his suffering and
exaltation. The Holy Spirit continues to guide what is created by the Father in the Son to
its perfection. This is the way the Triune God effects the history in which the Church also
has a role. The Church participates in the continuing action of creation by God. It
“participates in the uniting of men with one another, in the uniting of society with nature
and in the uniting of creation with God… Thus the whole being of the Church is marked
by participation in the history of God’s dealings with the world.”3
According to R. Olsen, Moltmann’s theory of innertrinitarian life has gone
through an evolution: in his book The Crucified God, Moltmann holds that the event of
the cross is the sole historical event that involves the inner life of God the Trinity;
however, later in The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, Moltmann also considers the
kingdom of God, which is still on the way to its fulfillment, as an element which
influences the inner life of the Trinity. R. Olsen says that because Moltmann wants to
preserve the theory of the “openness” of Trinitarian life to the world, consequently,
history of the kingdom, i.e. the economy of the Trinity becomes identified with the
immanent Trinity. In other words, the history of the world as salvation history and
intertrinitarian life are interdependent.4
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “The Wealth of Gifts of the Spirit and their Christian Identity” in Concilium 1999/1, p.
30-35, at 31; “Reconciliation with Nature” in Pacifica 5, 1992, p. 301-313, at 306.
2
Ibidem.
3
4
Cf. R. OLSEN, “Trinity and Eschatology: The Historical Being of God in J. Moltmann and W.
Pannenberg” in Scot. Journ. of Theol. 36, 1983, p. 213-227. For further comments on Moltmann’s theory of
“The Unity of the Triune God and His openness to the world”, see also J. B. COBB, JR., “Reply to Jürgen
Moltmann’s ‘The Unity of the Triune God’” in St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 28, 1984, p. 173-177;
S. B. THISTLETHWAITE, “Comments on Jürgen Moltmann’s ‘The Unity of the Triune God’” in St.
75
1.2. Christological unity

The Church is one not because it unites its members, but because Jesus Christ
unites them in the Church in all places and at all times. Therefore, the unity of the Church
lies in Jesus Christ’s activity of uniting Christians in himself. St. Paul talks at length
about the unity of the Church, which is fastened in the unity within the Christ: “But now
in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have become near by the blood of Christ. So
then you are … members of the household of God built upon the foundation of the
apostles and prophets, with Christ as the capstone. Through him the whole structure is
held together and grows into a temple sacred in the Lord; in him you also are being built
together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit” (Eph. 2: 13,19-22). Along the same
lines as this passage of St. Paul, Moltmann says: “But where else can the Church’s unity
be found than in the one Lord of the Church and the undivided offering of his divine life
upon the cross for the salvation of the world? The unity of the Church can only be a unity
in truth, and the truth which demands unity and makes it possible is the all-embracing and
all-saving truth of his sacrificial death on the cross at Golgotha.”1
The unity of the people of God is the fulfillment of the promises of the Old
Testament when God promised to Abraham the blessing of all communities of the earth:
“All the communities of the earth shall find blessing in you” (Gn. 12: 3b). In the kingdom
of God inaugurated by Jesus, these promises are realized. Now all are united under the
lordship of Christ. The unity of the members of the Church is experienced first in the
gathering of the congregation. When they gather in the Church for baptism, for the Lord’s
Supper or for praying together, they are united in Christ. It is only because the
community gathers together for the proclamation of the gospel and for the fellowship of
the Lord’s Supper, that the Church finds its unity in Christ.2 Moltmann disagrees with the
practice in the Catholic Church, where the unity of the Church is linked to the ordained
minister. According to him, the gathering of a community for worship can be presided by
Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 28, 1984, p. 179-182; J. MEYENDORFF, “Reply to Jürgen Moltmann’s
‘The Unity of the Triune God’” in St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 28, 1984, p. 183-188.
1
J. MOLTMANN, “The ecumenical Church under the cross” in Theological Digest 24, 1976, p. 380-389, at
380.
2
76
a non-ordained minister. The unity of the Church is assured by the presence of Christ,
particularly at the Lord’s Table, not by the minister.1
With this unity they also experience mutual acceptance. Thus, the unity of the
congregation has two dimensions: vertical and horizontal. Although different
communities may gather in different times at different places, all are united in Christ.
Being united in Christ as one family, the communities recognize one another’s situations.
Whether in joy or in suffering they recognize and support one another. “If one member
suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together” (I Cor. 12: 26).
With this practice, they prove themselves to be members of the one Church of Christ.
This practice of solidarity requires crossing beyond the limit of the boundary of one
community. But that would only be an inwardly directed unity. The unity of the Church
of Christ is at the same time a messianic unity. In this way of understanding things, the
Church also needs to reach out to the world.2 The Church has a mission of unifying a
world divided by injustice, poverty, oppression and persecution. Inheriting from the
activity of Jesus, the unity of the Church has the goal of unifying all nations in his
kingdom.
1.3. The means, signs and sources of the unity of the Church
By baptism, men and women become children of God and belong to the Church
of Christ.3 Although they are already united in Christ, they have the duty of safeguarding
and strengthening that unity. It is clear that all theologians and Churches agree that
baptism unites Christians in the Church; however, they disagree on many other issues,
among them the Lord’s Supper and hierarchy in terms of serving the unity of the Church.
1.3.1 The Eucharist

Although baptism is the pedestal for unity among Christians and we know that all
Christians of diverse Churches are baptised, we still wonder whether there is really a pre-
existing Christian unity. I suppose that if the answer be positive, we would ask a further
question regarding the pluralism of denominational Churches, which do not come
1
Cf. ibidem.
2
For Moltmann, ‘The world’ means both the cosmic world and the world of human beings and other living
creatures.
3
Cf. 1Cor. 12: 13; Gal. 3: 27f.; Col. 3: 10f.
77
together at the same Table of the Lord. On the contrary, if the answer is negative, then we
will ask: why do we not rely on the united hierarchy and the common sharing at the
Lord’s Table in order to establish and reinforce the unity desired by Christ?1 In light of
this reflection, a very crucial question must come up: Does the Eucharist bring about
Christian unity or is it a sign of unity already existing? Is the Eucharist the consequence
of the unity or the cause of the unity?
Many Catholic officials, as well as laymen, argue that fellowship at the Lord’s
Table is an expression of unity and that because the Protestant and Catholic Churches are
not yet in unity, any interdenominational participation at the same Table of the Lord is
immature. Although since the Second World Conference, organized by the World
Council of Churches in Edinburgh, many denominational Churches have felt that
sacramental intercommunion is necessary for improving the unity of the Church;
however, the conference at Lund in 1952 pointed out that the Orthodox Church holds that
this intercommunion cannot take place while disagreements on church life and doctrine
still separate the Churches, for according to the Orthodox Church “Holy Communion is
an act of the Church as One Body.”2 Also the Anglican Church has reserves on
intercommunion, for according to the Lambeth Conference in 1930, intercommunion is
the goal of, rather than the means to, restoration of Christian unity.3 Furthermore, the
Anglican Church also questions the validity of ordained ministers of other Churches. In
fact, not only the Orthodox Church and the Anglican Church, but also many other
denominational Churches, despite their feeling of the urgency of intercommunion, cannot
yet commit to the practice of intercommunion due to their differences on church life and
doctrine.4
1.3.1.1. Baptism as condition for inter-communion

While there are also many strong theological arguments that support
intercommunion, for Moltmann, baptism binds Christians together into fellowship and
1
We will see that Moltmann advocates inter-communion in view of promoting the Church’s unity, but
downplays the role of the hierarchy.
2
THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES (Faith and Order), The Third World Conference on Faith and Order,
(O. TOMKINS, ed.), London: SCM Press, 1953. p. 49.
3
Cf. The Statement of the Lambeth Conference, Resolution 42, 1930, cited by WCC, The Third World
Conference on Faith and Order, p. 55.
4
THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, The Third World Conference on Faith and Order, p. 49-59.
78
“the Lord’s Supper is a sign of fellowship and not of division.”1 Through baptism, there
is already unity among Christians in Jesus Christ. Therefore, all those who are baptised
are invited into this fellowship and no authority has the right to forbid others to come;
even the fact of denominational separation should not be a motive for not coming
together for the Lord’s Supper. Because God’s invitation is open to the righteous and the
unrighteous, the fellowship at the Lord’s Supper “generates and precedes our repentance
and not the other way around.”2 If denominational Churches disagree on many matters of
doctrine and church order, the theological doctrine of the Lord’s Supper should not be
controversial. Because Jesus’ invitation to the Lord’s Supper is bound to baptism, all
Churches and Christians should unite at the Lord’s Table instead of using it as a pretext
for division. Indeed, all Christians, due to their baptism, thanks to the open invitation of
the Lord, and despite their different denominations, are invited to come to the same Table
of the Lord. Moltmann indirectly complains against Roman Catholic authority for
impeding this practice. 3
1.3.1.2. Church unity as a condition for inter-communion

Indeed, as Moltmann points out, the Roman Catholic Church does not allow inter-
communion without discretion. The Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican Council II states:
“In his Church he [Jesus Christ] instituted the wonderful sacrament of the Eucharist by
which the unity of the Church is both signified and brought about.”4 Vatican Council II
explains this affirmation further in the following: “As for common worship
(communicatio in sacris), however, it may not be regarded as a means to be used
indiscriminately for the restoration of unity among Christians. Such worship depends
chiefly on two principles: it should signify the unity of the Church; it should provide a
sharing in the means of grace. The fact that it should signify unity generally rules out
common worship.”5 Here I notice that the document does not say something like this: The
fact that “it should provide a sharing in the means of grace” entails common worship.
Thus, although Vatican Council II recognizes the double effect of the Eucharistic
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p 245.
2
J. S. RHODES, “The Church as the Community of Open Friendship” in The Asbury Theological Journal
55, 2000, p. 41-50, at 46.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 245
4
VATICAN II, Decree on Ecumenism “Unitatis redintegratio”, n. 2.
5
Ibid., n. 8.
79
celebration, it prioritizes “the already present unity” over “the source of grace”. The
Secretariat for the Promotion of the Unity of Christians in the Declaration of the Position
of the Catholic Church on the Celebration of the Eucharist in common by Christians of
different Confessions echoes the teaching of Vatican Council II: “Celebration of the
sacraments is an action of the celebrating community, signifying the oneness in faith,
worship and life of the community. Where this unity of sacramental faith is deficient, the
participation of the separated with Catholics, especially in the Sacraments of the
Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick, is forbidden.”1
For the Roman Catholic Church, the deficiency of the Sacrament of Order in other
Christian communities also creates obstacles for the common celebration of the
Eucharist. The Decree on Ecumenism n. 22 states: “The ecclesial communities separated
from us lack that fullness of unity with us which should flow from Baptism, and we
believe that especially because of a deficiency of the Sacrament of Order they have not
preserved the genuine and total reality of the eucharistic mystery.”2 Moltmann says that
in ecumenical discussions, with the purpose of bringing about the unity of the Church,
fellowship should be discussed along with the issue of the mutual recognition of
ministries. He wants to emphasize the fact that fellowship is an important element in the
Church’s unity and he also wants to include discussion of the validity of the ordained
ministry in the ecumenical dialogue. Both these elements constitute the condition for
unity. At the same time, I also notice that Moltmann seems to say that it is not the
1
Cf. S.P.U.C., “Dans ces derniers temps”, 1970, n. 6, in A. FLANNERY (ed.), Vatican Council II The
Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Collegevill, MN: Liturgical Press, 1975, p. 502-507.
2
On the subject of the validity of the ordained minister, we should note that, given the agreement between
the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church regarding apostolic succession, the priesthood and the
Eucharist (Cf. VATICAN II, Unitatis redintegratio, n. 15; JEAN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter “Ut unum sint”, n.
50), one cannot ignore the question as to why there has not yet been a common celebration of the Eucharist
between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. Is it clear that according to the Catholic
Church the problem involves the question of the Papacy and hierarchy? (Cf. JEAN PAUL II, Ut unum sint, n.
55). It is readily admitted that the Catholic Church is more open than the Orthodox Church to the
possibility of intercommunion. If the Catholic Church welcomes Christians of the Orthodox Church to the
Lord’s Table in exceptional circumstances, the Orthodox Church does not offer this opportunity to
Christians of the Catholic Church. In this regard, evidently the Orthodox Church has not issued any official
document; however, its views are represented and expressed through some of its theologians, such as P.
Bouteneff, P. G. Florovsky, B. Bobrinskoy, etc. See P. BOUTENEFF, “La Koinonia et l’unité eucharistique :
un point de vue orthodoxe” in Irénikon 72, 1999, p. 614-630. P. G. FLOROVSKY, “The Limits of the
Church” in Church Quarterly Review 117, 1933, p. 117-131 and “The Doctrine of the Church and the
Ecumenical Problem” in The Ecumenical Review 2, 1950, p. 152-161. B. BOBRINSKOY, “L’Uniatisme à la
lumière de ecclésiologies qui s’affrontent” in Irénikon 65, 1992, p. 423-439 and “Catholic-Orthodox
Relations: The Need for Love as Well as Knowledge” in Sobornost 15, 1993, p. 28-38.
80
authority of the ministry but the congregation which reflects the Trinitarian unity that
forms a Church; therefore, the validity of the ordained ministry is not a major obstacle to
Church unity.1
Intercommunion has ecumenical implications because it expresses and
strengthens the Church’s unity. Moltmann appeals for this practice, basing on the open
invitation of the Lord Jesus. However, I would also argue that if a Eucharistic celebration
is not valid due to an invalid minister or the invalidity of the Eucharistic celebration as
such, then the vigour of the open invitation of Christ does not apply there. This is the
argument of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, which calls into question the
validity of the Eucharist of some of other denominational Churches. At the same time, I
also see that the World Council of Churches is open to discussion regarding the question
of the validity of the Eucharistic minister and the Eucharist. In fact, the WCC, in its
famous document Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (BEM), after listing the elements in
the celebration of the Eucharist, states further that the presider of the Eucharist is the
ordained minister and considers that through the ordained ministry, the Church preserves
its continuity and faith. It also recognizes the historical reality of the succession of
bishops.2 The World Council of Churches notes that “today Churches, including those
engaged in union negotiations, are expressing willingness to accept Episcopal succession
as a sign of the apostolicity of the life of the whole Church… Their acceptance of the
Episcopal succession will best further the unity of the whole Church.”3
It is noteworthy that the WCC does not clearly specify the true presence of the
Lord in this Eucharist, rather its language seems to be ambiguous: “eating and drinking in
communion with Christ and with each member of the Church.”4 In responding to BEM,
the Roman Catholic Church says that it should speak “of participation of body and blood
of Christ (cf. I Cor. 10:16; John 6:56)”5 which would connote the true presence of Jesus
Christ in the Eucharist. Moltmann does not specifically discuss the differences in
theological understanding of the Lord’s Supper, while the Roman Catholic Church
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “The Fellowship of the Holy Spirit. Trinitarian Pneumatology”, in Scottish Journal of
Theology 37, 1984, p. 287-300, at 293-294.
2
Cf. WCC, Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, Geneva: WCC, 1982, on Baptism: n. 27-29 (p. 15-16); on
Ministry: n. 35-37 (p. 28-29).
3
Ibid., on Ministry, n. 38 (p. 29-30).
4
Ibid., on Eucharist, n. 27 (p. 16).
5
M. THURIAN (ed.), Churches respond to BEM, vol. VI, Geneva: WCC, 1988, p. 17-18.
81
considers it as one of many elements concerning the possibility of inter-communion:

“Before considering another way of acting in the matter of a common Eucharist, it will be
necessary to establish clearly any change to be made will remain totally in conformity
with the Church’s profession of faith and that it will be a service to the spiritual life of her
members.”1
1.3.1.3. Inter-communion as a means to church unity

We have seen that Moltmann, along the same lines as the Roman Catholic
Church, recognizes the first fruit of the Eucharistic celebration, namely a source of grace
and unity. However, there are differences between the two parties concerning that unity.
For the Roman Catholic Church, the unity is the condition for the common celebration,
while it is its fruit according to Moltmann. For him, since baptism gives Christians the
right to come to the Lord’s Table, the common celebration is the consequence of the
unity already existing through baptism. Common celebration will strengthen the unity
already existing.2 He says: “The Lord’s Supper is also the ‘source-point’ for communion
between the crucified one and ourselves, and for our communion with each other.”3
Let’s see what St. Paul has to say: “ The bread which we break, is it not a
participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one
body, for we all partake of the one bread” (I Cor. 10: 16b-17). In my opinion, there are
different interpretations of this Pauline passage: First, we may interpret it as saying that
although we are many and different (divided), we all belong to Christ; and because we all
participate in the one Bread of Christ, we become one body and are united. In this sense,
the Eucharist is the source of the unity. Second interpretation can be: despite the fact that
1
S.P.U.C., Dans ces derniers temps, 1970, n. 9.
2
Many theologians would be in agreement with Moltmann. W. W. Harvey, an Anglican, even as early as in
19th century, writes: “the Sacraments are a bond of unity, and serve to create and preserve a closely vital
communion between man and God; while they establish a firm principle of brotherly love and openness of
spirit between man and man (cf. W. W. HARVEY, The History and Theology of the Three Creeds, vol. 1,
Cambridge: Deighton, 1854, p. 492). W. Pannenberg, agreeing with Moltmann, explicitly and clearly calls
for interdenominational fellowship at the Lord’s Table. He says: “Fellowship with Christ through
participation in his body is the basis for the fellowship of Christians in the body of Christ. Therefore the
Eucharist is not only the expression and sign of an already existing church unity. It is also the source and
root by which Christian unity lives and is constantly being renewed. This supports the view that fellowship
at the Lord’s Table is not merely the goal of the process of Church union but that it can also be the present
power of Christ by which we travel the path toward the goal (W. PANNENBERG, The Church, Philadelphia:
The Westminster Press, 1983, p.117).
3
J. MOLTMANN, “The ecumenical Church under the cross”, p. 383.
82
the Christians of the community of Corinth differ in culture, character, personality, gift
and interest, they are not really divided but belong to one community. In this sense, the
Eucharist is the source of the unity, but a unity within a community; it is not a unity in the
sense of the goal of ecumenical dialogue. Is it correct to interpret it as saying that St. Paul
emphasizes the effect of the Eucharist, not the condition of the unity supposedly already
existing? In my view, the theology of the Eucharist of Moltmann contains nothing
contrary to the theology of St. Paul.1
1.3.1.4. Inter-communion as a sign to the world of the Church’s unity

For the Roman Catholic Church, the Christian unity is the condition for the inter-
communion and the Eucharist is the sign of the already existing unity of the Church in the
Eucharist. The Decree on Ecumenism, quoting Is. 11: 10-12 affirms that “the Church,
then, God’s only flock, like a standard lifted on high for the nations to see it, ministers the
gospel of peace to all mankind.”2 If the various Christian denominational Churches were
to retain their status-quo regarding their differences on the issue of unity but were to
come together at the same Table of the Lord, the world might misunderstand and
mistakenly recognize an untrue unity. The common celebration of the Eucharist should
be a sign of the true unity already existing in the Church. That unity, therefore, should
precede common celebration of the Eucharist. Through true Christian unity the world will
recognize the Lord, and through love among Christians the world will recognize the
1
In this regard, I would like to refer to some eminent Catholic theologians: M. Schmaus, a Catholic, being
in the same line with Moltmann, interprets that St. Paul indicates unity as the effect of the Eucharistic
celebration. He notes: “In First Corinthians he (St. Paul) says (I Cor. 10: 17) that the unity is created and
ensured not only through the eating of the one bread but also through the power of the Spirit” (M.
SCHMAUS, Dogma 4, The Church, its Origin and Structure, London: Sheed & Ward Inc., 1971, p.107). J.
Ratzinger says: “Though the eucharistic assembly first leads one out of the world - into the ‘Upper Room’,
into the interior space of the faith, as we saw - it is precisely the Upper Room that is the space for a
universal encounter of all who, transcending all boundaries, believe in Christ” (J. RATZINGER, “Eucharist
and Mission” in Irish Theological Quarterly 65, 2000, p. 245-264, at 254). In my opinion, Ratzinger holds
here that the Eucharist unites Christians without regarding their differences; however, he does not specify
whether Christians are already united in one denominational Church despite their diverse boundaries and
differences or whether they belong to different denominational Churches but can come to the same Lord’s
Table. Ratzinger spells out further, referring to St. Paul’s letter to the Galatians: “In the Eucharist, we
receive the Body of the Lord and so become one body with him; we all receive the same body and for that
reason become ‘one in Christ’ ourselves (cf. Gal. 3:28). The Eucharist leads us out of ourselves, right into
him, so that we can say with Paul: it is no long I who live, but Christ who lives in me (cf. Gal. 2:20)… The
Eucharist assembles, it brings people into a community of body and a community of blood with Jesus
Christ, and thus with God and among people themselves” (J. RATZINGER, “Eucharist and Mission”, p. 252).
All Ratzinger wants to say is that the Eucharist unites the people of God.
2
VATICAN II, Unitatis redintegratio, n. 2.
83
disciples of Jesus. As he himself says: “So that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in
me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me”
(John. 17: 21). “I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you,
so you also should love one another. This is how all will know that you are my disciples,
if you have love for one another” (John. 13: 34-35).
From another slant, for Moltmann and other Protestant theologians as well as
some Catholic theologians, sharing at the Lord’s Table is not only the sign of unity, but
also the source of that unity and the goal of ecumenism. Moltmann expresses this view
ubiquitously in his texts.1
1.3.2.The hierarchical structure

If the Eucharist is essential for the Church’s unity as far as the Church is visible,
is its hierarchical structure also vital to its existence? Moltmann indisputably holds that
since the Church is the Church of Jesus Christ and the Church is the Church because
people gather in the name of Jesus, the Pope and hierarchy are not essential for the unity
1
Along the same lines as Moltmann, J. Famerée, a Catholic, argues that since the Church is not yet in its
plenitude but is still on its ways towards the kingdom of God, one should not require the existence of full
unity in the Church as the precondition for intercommunion. In fact, Churches are already united in Jesus
Christ through baptism and faith in him; therefore, intercommunion should be practiced so that the
Churches may show the unity already present as well as be strengthened by the source of the Eucharist,
which will bring more unity to the Church. J. Famerée complains that even the Catholic Church has not
gone far enough because it considers only the individual dimensions of Christians but still lacks an
ecclesiological dimension in allowing Christians to come to the Lord’s Table of other Churches only as
concerns their own spiritual needs (Cf. J. FAMERÉE, “Communion ecclésiale et communicatio in sacris
appliquées à l’eucharistie” in Irénikon 72, 1999, p. 586-613). See also J. FAMERÉE, “La communion dans le
baptême. Point de vue catholique, questions oecuméniques” in Irénikon 71, 1998, p. 435-460. Pope John
Paul II affirms that in considering the possibility of the common celebration of the Sacraments, particularly
the Eucharist in the context of ecumenism, we cannot lose sight of either the Christological or ecclesiastical
dimension: “There must never be a loss of appreciation for the ecclesiological implication of sharing in the
sacraments, especially in the Holy Eucharist” (JEAN PAUL II, Sit unum sint, n. 58). In my view, the most
challenging question for the Catholic Church should be: What degree of ecclesiastical unity do the
Churches have to attain before they can come to the same Table of the Lord? Does the ecclesiastical
dimension override the Christological dimension, when under the pretext of lacking a visibly ecclesiastical
unity, the Churches do not yet allow themselves to come to the same Table of the Lord? The Orthodox
Church too, regarding the possibility of an inter-Eucharistic celebration with the Catholic Church, since it
already acknowledges theological convergence concerning issues related to the Eucharist, should be more
open to the possibility in considering what is essential to Church unity. Should the Catholic Church and the
Orthodox Church re-examine the possibility of their common celebration of the Eucharist? By the same
token, a challenge for the Protestant Churches would be the validity of the Eucharist and the Eucharistic
minister; if their’s lack validity, then it is not the Table of the Lord, and consequently does not proffer the
Lord’s open invitation.
84
of the Church.1 In fact, Moltmann maintains: “it is only because the community gathers
together for the proclamation of the gospel and for the fellowship of hearing the Word,
here finding its unity in Christ, that the commissioned preacher can be charged with
further services which will contribute to its unity.”2
The most cited scriptural verses supporting the successors of St. Peter as heads of
the Church are Mt. 16: 18-19: “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I
will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will
give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound
in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”; Lk. 22: 32: “but I
have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must
strengthen your brothers”; and John. 21: 15-17: “Simon, son of John, ...feed my lambs,
tend my sheep, feed my sheep.” St. Irenaeus believed that Peter was charged as the head
of the Church: “By indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great,
the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the
two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; and also [by pointing out] the faith preached
to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it
is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its
pre-eminent authority.”3
St. Irenaeus also mentions twelve successors of Peter in Rome with the purpose of
affirming that the succession of the apostles is vital to the Church’s unity.4 According to
St. Irenaeus, the succession of bishops from the apostles guarantees the transmission of
truth, and thus the unity of the Church: “ It is within the power of all, therefore, in every
Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles
manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who
were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the
succession of the men to our own times.”5 In the same line, St. Ignatius of Antioch also
does not differentiate the Church presided over by a bishop with the Church of Christ:
1
Cf. A. SKVORCEVIC, Ecclesiologia eschatologico-messianica di Jürgen Moltmann, Roma : Pontificiae
Universitatis Gregoriana, 1982, p. 61-65.
2
3
IRENAEUS, Adv. Haer. III. III, 2.
4
Cf. IRENAEUS, Adv. Haer. III. III, 3.
5
IRENAEUS, Adv. Haer. III. III, 1.
85
“Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even
as, where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”1
Moltmann comments that the teaching of St. Ignatius on the relationship between
the episcopate and the Church is “one-sided” and “monarchical”. He complains that with
regard to the unity of the Church, the role of the hierarchy often overrides that of the
congregation. According to him, the motto of St. Ignatius “ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia” leads
necessarily to the monarchical episcopate.2 He says that this certainly helps the Church’s
unity, but it restrains the works of the Spirit acting in the community.3 According to
Moltmann, “the charismatic Church does not initially find its unity in the monarchical
episcopate nor in the universal episcopate of the papacy. It already finds it in the
fellowship of the Son with the Father, into which the Holy Spirit draws the community of
Christians… The pneumatology of the monarchical episcopate must therefore be drawn
into the Trinitarian pneumatology of the entire people of God.”4
Moltmann says that in order to have the unity of the Church, it is necessary to
have leadership from below, i.e. from each local community. For Moltmann, the
universal and central office can be useful and accepted but needs not be linked to the
name of Peter.5 He emphasizes that this leadership needs not absolutely consist of
ordained ministers. They can be non-ordained members of the congregation and should
have charisma, chosen and recognized by people, and finally commissioned.6 Although
Moltmann seems to acknowledge the vitality of the Church’s leadership insofar as it is a
1
IGNATIUS, Smyrn., 9.
2
Y. Congar attributes two elements to this teaching of St. Ignatius: Firstly, without a bishop a Church is
without its legitimacy and it is not a true Church; secondly, there is a strict rapport of representation and
continuity between the absolute bishop, i.e., the Christ, and the visible and earthly bishop. In this sense, the
hierarchy is fundamental both for the true and uniting Church. Cf. Y. CONGAR, Église et papauté, Paris :
Cerf, 1994, p. 31-32.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “The Fellowship of the Holy Spirit Trinitarian Pneumatology”, p. 287-300, at 293-
294.
4
Ibid., p. 294.
5
In principle, Pannenberg, thinking like Moltmann, also recognizes the importance of the leadership of
local Churches as vital to the unity of the Church; however, he is more open than Moltmann with regard to
central leadership in preserving and promoting Church unity. Pannenberg says: “The Lutherans accept in
principle a ministry to the unity of the Church on the universal level. In this regard, along with the idea of a
general council to which the Lutheran Reformation steadfastly adhered, there need not be ruled out the
possibility that the Petrine office of the bishop of Rome might be a visible sign of the unity of the whole
Church to the degree that by theological reinterpretation and practical restructuring the office is
subordinated to the primacy of the gospel” (W. PANNENBERG, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, p. 421).
6
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 310-311. Cf. W. PANNENBERG, Systematic
Theology, vol. 3, p. 421.
86
social organization, he does not consider it essential as an inner element in terms of the
Church’s nature. From the Catholic Church’s viewpoint: because apostolic succession
consists of ordained leaders and is regarded as an element of the Church’s mark of unity,
it is not considered optional, but binding.1
For Moltmann, the ordained minister is helpful and optional for the unity of the
Church. Church unity comes from the unity of the Christian community and all Christians
have a duty to uphold it. “The association of the ministry of leadership with the ministries
of the word and sacrament makes it absolutely clear that the point of the ministries of
leadership lies in the unity of the congregation. But this is not a law. The charisma of
leadership and the keeping the community together can be carried out by other people as
well; and in many congregations is in fact often enough carried out by non-ordained
members of the congregation.”2 At another place in the same book, however, Moltmann
speaks differently: “If … the bishop represents Christ and hence the unity of the Church,
then the Church’s catholicity is determined by the universal, all-uniting presence of
Christ.”3 As I observe, Moltmann wants to position Jesus Christ as the center of the unity
of the Church in which people gather. At the same time, he recognizes the role of bishops
in relation to Christ; however, he attributes the unity of the Church to the gathering of the
congregation in the presence of Christ, not to the presence of bishops. Therefore, the role
of bishops as representatives of Jesus in each local Church is not vital to the unity of their
Churches.
If Moltmann emphasizes the fact of the gathering of the assembly in the presence
of Christ, which constitutes the Church’s unity, the Roman Catholic Church’s viewpoint
underlines the Church hierarchy as far as the collegiality.4 However, one may ask the
1
For Y. Congar, hierarchy is a ‘central organ’ that belongs to the structure of the Church. It is in charge of
the continuity of the Church, conserving its form and essential structure. The hierarchy is the Church’s
guardian, assuring the Church’s continuity, i.e., its apostolic succession and commission, as well as its
unity, i.e., communion through space (cf. Y. CONGAR, Vrai et fausse réforme dans l’Église, Unam Sanctam
20, Paris: Cerf, 1950, p. 251-252).
2
3
Ibid. p. 348.
4
As a result of Vatican Council II, K. Rahner expects more collegial co-operation between the Pope and
bishops. He proposes a representative body of the bishops’ conference of the whole world to work closely
with the pope, for the pope needs their support in governing the universal Church. This representative body
of the bishops’ conference should be superior to the Roman curia, and they should not reside permanently
in Rome but would meet with the Pope regularly in Rome. (Cf. K. RAHNER, “Pastoral-Theological
Observations on Episcopacy in the Teaching of Vatican II”, in Theological Investigations, vol. 6, London:
87
extent to which the Pope should cooperate with bishops. The answer is that the degree of
co-operation has evolved in history.1
This entire saying, cannot we deny the role of the Pope as well as that of each
bishop and of the Episcopal collegiality in maintaining the Church’s unity? In this sense,
I wonder why Moltmann says: “In the two-thousand year history of the Church, the
Popes have made no contribution worth mentioning to the ecumenical unity of
Christianity…Nor has the present Pope made any particular contribution to the
ecumenical unity of the Church.”2 Despite the fact that the Church consists of human
beings and is an organized institution, Moltmann seems to overemphasize the divine role
in keeping the Church united, but downplays the role of the Church hierarchy. He says:
“There are many gifts, but there is one Spirit. And this unity of the Spirit is the fellowship
joining the variously called and endowed believers. This relativizes every other guarantee
of unity: it is not the one doctrine, not the one pope, and not the one faith which creates
the unity in the diversity, and in the multiplicity of gifts; it is the fellowship of the
Spirit.”3 Indeed, for Moltmann, because ubi Christus, ibi Ecclesia, only Christ is the head
of the Church. He says: “The bishop of Rome is our venerable and important brother of
Darton, Longman & Todd, 1969, p.361-368, at 365. Cf. R. LENNEN, The Ecclesiology of Karl Rahner,
Oxford: Clarenden Press, 1995, p. 162.) Probably Rahner feels that the Roman Catholic Church is too
centralized and consequently is not closely in touch with local and international levels. He supposes that
with closer consultation with an internationally representative body of local bishops, the central Church in
Rome would be attuned to the whole Church, which would tend to favour the aspect of the Church’s unity
and universality.
1
G. Schwaiger describes: “The changing shape of papal power corresponds to changes in the whole
Church. It is determined by political and cultural shifts in the course of history, as well as by the personal
character of any given Pope.”(G. SCHWAIGER, “Pope” in K. RAHNER (ed.) Encyclopedia of Theology,
p.1243-1255, at 1245.) In this sense, I would say that, from the second half of the twentieth century
onward, with Vatican II, the call for greater co-operation and consultation between the Pope and bishops
reflects current political and cultural trends attuned to the system of democracy and faster and wider
systems of communication. It is, therefore, reasonable to say that although collaboration between the Pope
and bishops may be traditional and necessary, a wider degree of democracy is not always a requirement for
governing the Church. Throughout the history of the Church, there has been consultation between the Pope
and the college of bishops, but in modern times, there seems a quest for more collaboration and
consultation within the hierarchy of the Church. In earlier times, except in the event of General Councils,
the ecclesiastical form of government was more autocratic. Democracy is only one way of government,
which seems to be the best at this time of history in the third millennium.
2
J. MOLTMANN, “Has the Papacy an Ecumenical Future?” in Concilium, 1995/5, p. 135-137, at 136. In this
chapter, the subject studied is more about the hierarchical structure. The subject of the Papacy will be
studied thoroughly in the chapter dealing with the ‘apostolicity’.
3
88
Christ, but he is not the ‘head of the Church’. For the Churches of Christ, Christ alone is
the head.”1
1.4. The ecumenical Church

The fact is that a majority of Christians over the last century have felt strongly the
need for Church unity and a great number of Churches have made use of their efforts and
approaches in order to promote the unity of the Church. Since 1927, The World Council
of Churches, involving a majority of the denominational Churches, has held many
conferences and meetings for this purpose. The Orthodox Church has also joined in this
cause since its earliest efforts, while the Catholic Church has dialogued with all the
Christian Churches since Vatican Council II and has been particularly present at
conferences of the World Council of Churches for purposes of ecumenism.
The theological concept of the Church has to take into account the ecumenical
movement and the context of the Churches at present. We experience the presence of
varied denominational Churches existing together, but at the same time we are urged by
the wish of Jesus: “that they may be one” (John 17: 21). The ecumenical movement has
achieved progress when Churches have downplayed theological differences and shifted
focus to common ground, thanks to comparative ecclesiology and Christological
ecclesiology. With comparative ecclesiology, “the denominations learnt to know one
another in the hope that a better understanding of diverging views about faith and church
order would lead to a deepening of the desire for reunification and to corresponding
official resolutions.”2 Diverging views about faith, tradition and church order should not
be reasons for separating and excommunicating one another. These separate doctrines
should rather complete and enrich the Churches. By recognizing traditional doctrinal
1
J. MOLTMANN, “The Church as Communion” in Concilium, 1993/1, p. 136-138, at 137.
2
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 12. Moltmann quotes the document of the “Third
world Conference on Faith and Order” held at Lund in August 1952: “We have seen clearly that we can
make no real advance towards unity if we only compare our several conceptions of the nature of the Church
and the traditions in which they are embodied. But once again it has been proved true that as we seek to
draw closer to Christ we come closer to one another. We need, therefore, to penetrate behind our divisions
to a deeper and richer understanding of the mystery of the God-given union of Christ with his Church.” J.
MOLTMANN quoted this text from WCC, Third world Conference on Faith and Order, p. 15; cf. J.
MOLTMANN, “The ecumenical Church under the cross”, p. 281.
89
distinctions, the Churches also acknowledge non-theological factors, i.e., economic,

political and cultural conflicts, which have played a role in church schisms.1
Moltmann observes that realizing that there should be no valid reason, not even
traditional doctrinal distinctions, that can justify the separation of Churches and that a
majority of (if not all) Churches feel the need for Church unity, the various
denominations have tried to find positive ground for unity.2 Thus, at the Lund conference
in 1952, the participant Churches surpassed comparative ecclesiology and reached
Christological ecclesiology, which counts on Jesus Christ as the center of Christian unity.
With this Christological focus, the denominations realized that they all belong to one
Church of Christ and are all drawn into Christ’s messianic mission, energized by their
eschatological hope, and becoming the Church of the coming kingdom of God.3 In
practicing Christological ecclesiology, the ‘Commission on Faith and Order’ invited all
Churches to trace their origins to Christ as their beginning, as “from river to the source.”4
With Christological ecclesiology, the Churches have tried to overcome anathema and
arrive at dialogue and co-operation. A dream that one day all Churches will become one
Church and will speak in one voice from one council has occupied the mind and desire of
a great number of Christians since then.
At the same time, according to Moltmann, everyone should realize that the
emergence of the ecumenical movement and its success does not originate with
“theological strategy and ecclesiastical tactics,”5 but with God. Vatican Council II, in
Decree on Ecumenism says “in recent times he [the Lord] has begun to bestow more
generously upon divided Christians remorse over their divisions and longing for unity.”6
In the same line, Moltmann says that the grace of unity of the Churches comes from “the
power of Christ’s own passion… The ecumenical movement toward the unity of the
Church is essentially a movement coming from the Cross of its one Lord.”7 Only
standing together under the Cross and recognizing one another as brothers and sisters, can
1
2
With regard to the motives for Church disunity, the Catholic Church still considers the diversity of
doctrines as one of the principal obstacles to the Church’s unity.
3
4
Ibidem.
5
J. MOLTMANN, “The ecumenical Church under the Cross”, p. 381.
6
VATICAN II, Unitatis Redintegratio, 1964, n.1.
7
J. MOLTMANN, “The ecumenical Church under the Cross”, p. 381.
90
denominations find unity, for under the Cross, we discover the love of God for all of us
and that we have nothing on our own, but unity from God binding us in the same family
of God. Thus, for Moltmann, the Cross of Jesus is a “brick” for unifying the Churches:
“But true and lasting ecumenical unity will be lived on the basis of united endurance and
shared suffering…The Church shares in Christ’s sufferings only when it takes part in
Christ’s mission. Its Christian suffering is apostolic suffering.”1 In other words, Jesus
Christ suffers with the world, (the Father suffers with his son and with the world; of
course, the Holy Spirit also suffers with Jesus Christ and with the world), and the Church
suffers with Jesus Christ and with the world. R. J. Bauckham comments that “Moltmann
has increasingly come to see real ecumenical unity as realized ‘under the Cross’ in
sharing suffering.”2
With the consideration of the Christocentric founding of the Church and the fruit
of ecumenism, J. Moltmann had expected the admission of inter-Eucharist for inter-
denominations; but, according to him, this optimistic expectation was jeopardized by
Pope John Paul’s call for the re-evangelization of Europe. Moltmann complains: “We do
not need a one-sided Catholic or Protestant ‘new evangelization’ of Europe. What we
need is an all-Christian, ecumenical assembly able to continue the conciliar process.”3
However, in my opinion, it is noteworthy that Pope John Paul II also recognizes the
disadvantage of any competition in evangelization among different denominations in the
same mission fields: “When non-believers meet missionaries who do not agree among
themselves, even though they all appeal to Christ, will they be in apposition to receive the
true message?”4 Non-believers will not be able to see the same Christian principles
preached by these missionaries or distinguish the difference in them and would become
scandalized by these missionaries. “The embarrassment of Christian denominations
competing in the same mission fields is to be viewed as a counter witness to the gospel
1
Ibid., p. 386 and 387. Moltmann tells the stories in prisons and concentration camps where Christians of
different denominations pray together and share at the same Table of the Lord. In these activities, they
experience unity because they do not think of their differences but of the same Christ (cf. J. MOLTMANN,
The Open Church, p. 88-91).
2
Cf. R. J. BAUCKHAM, Moltmann, Messianic Theology in the Making, Basingstoke, UK: Marshall Morgan
and Scott Publications, 1987, p.129.
3
J. MOLTMANN, “Christianity in the Third Millennium”, p.78.
4
JOHN PAUL II, Ut Unum Sint, 98.
91
preached by Christ.”1 In this sense, it is necessary not to only point out the theological
differences between Moltmann and Pope John Paul II; on the contrary, I see that both
Moltmann and Pope John Paul II are in agreement in emphasizing the importance of the
ecumenical effort in view of the Church’s unity, which will have effects in
evangelization.
Another point I would like to bring out here is that, although Moltmann asserts
that the Church should be open to all people and the Gospel needs to be preached to all
nations, the question to put to him here is “when”. Should we wait until ecumenism
achieves the unity of the Church first, and then the Church’s mission will be carried out?
I think that that the Churches cannot wait, but the separated Churches, Protestant and
Catholic Churches, should evangelize the world now, even though they have to do it
independently. In other words, does it not seem that Moltmann’s call for the Church’s
openness to all and his protest against “one-sided denominational” evangelization,
namely the Catholic Church’s, are hardly reconciled?2
To conclude this section, it is clear that the unity of all Christian Churches has
been the utmost aspiration of many Christians. Since the second half of the twentieth
century, various denominational Churches have come together for dialogue in view of
reaching ecumenism, and these dialogues have been very fruitful. J. Moltmann describes
this positive results in these words: “The ecumenical movement for the unification of
1
J. CHERIAMPANATT, “The Catholic Principles of Ecumenism: Towards a New Theology of Koinonia in
Plurality,” Ephrem’s Theological Journal 3, 1999, p. 155-171, at 158-159.
2
All Christians have the duty of safeguarding the Church’s unity and promoting the unification of Christian
Churches. For those who participate directly in ecumenical dialogues, either pessimistic or optimistic
prospects for the unification of the Church may arise. With this experience, we should all see that
ecumenism still has a long way to go, with, however, a light at the end of the tunnel. We should consider
Cheriampanatt’s opinion (a Catholic theologian) that in order to keep ecumenism moving forwards, the
parties should agree on what is essential for uniting the Churches. In this sense, Cheriampanatt is concerned
over the Catholic Church and argues: “Hence, in the new ecclesiology of koinonia in plurality, envisaged
by the Council the Catholic Church has to take genuine diversities seriously. Only when the Catholic
Church puts into practice the conciliar principle unity only in essentials, her ecumenical prospects with the
separated Christian will be brighter” (J. CHERIAMPANATT, “The Catholic Principles of Ecumenism:
Towards a New Theology of Koinonia in Plurality”, p. 158-159). Cf. S.P.U.C., Reflection and Suggestions
Concerning Ecumenical Dialogue, 1970, in A. FLANNERY (ed.), Vatican Council II The Conciliar and Post
Conciliar Documents, p.546). J. Famerée recalls that four elements claimed by the Catholic Church
constitute the separative differences with other Churches; they are: the necessity of communion with the
bishop of Rome, who can act by himself or with the college of bishops, the juridical primacy of the pope,
and the infallibility of the pope and his magisterial authority (Cf. J. FAMERÉE, “Ecclésiologie catholique,
Différences séparatrices et rapprochements avec les autres Églises”, in Revue Théologique de Louvain 33,
2002, p. 28-60, at 48). All other denominational Churches too should frankly examine what is essential to
Church unity.
92
separated Churches in enmity with each other is without doubt the greatest gift that we
have received in the twentieth century.”1
1.5. Unity in diversity

If it’s true that the Church is one, why are there so many denominational
Churches? Do they all belong to the one Church of Christ? Can these many Churches
remain separated from one another and at the same time hold the mark of ‘unity’? These
Churches are different from one another in matters of creed, worship and Church order;
can they really be called the One Church? Which areas of doctrine, church order,
tradition and culture, etc., and to what degree within these areas, should the Churches
retain or abandon? How can the different denominational Churches unite into one Church
and at the same time maintain their own identity?
Many Churches and theologians as well as Christians would agree in principle
that should the Churches reach full unity, each Church will to some extent retain its own
identity. Therefore, this means that the unity of the Church will respect the diversity of
Churches.2 In this sense, J. Moltmann does not advocate a unity of the Church in the
traditional sense which consists in a “numerical union” (Einheit, unio); on the contrary,
he calls for a unity in the sense of “conciliar communion” (Gemeinschaft), which consists
in a community of different members, an organized union. In ‘conciliar communion’
there is a unity of multitudes where one can find particularity, diversity and free
consensus concerning the common life of the Church, and collegiality; where one can
find fraternity, liberty and dignity. However, according to A. Skvorcevic, a Catholic, the
ecumenical model proposed by Moltmann risks resulting in indifference between
Churches and lack of co-responsibility for one another. In fact, this model centres on the
life of each individual Church instead of the life of the universal Church. Furthermore,
1
J. MOLTMANN, “Christianity in the Third Millennium”, p. 77; cf. The Spirit of Life, p. 4.
2
Pannenberg says the unified Church that the Second Vatican Council and the World Council of Churches
seek, can “take from and become visible in our contemporary Christianity only in the multiplicity of the
existing Christian communities, only through mutual recognition of these different communities, which
will then develop new forms for the expression of their unity” (W. PANNENBERG, The Church, p. 152-153).
J. Cheriampanatt indicates that ecumenism does not imply a return to Rome, but rather a re-integration or
restoration of disintegrated unity (cf. J. CHERIAMPANATT, The Catholic Principles of Ecumenism: Towards
a New Theology of Koinonia in Plurality, p. 169). H. Küng argues: “The various Churches do not need to
deny their origins or their specific situations; their language, their history, their customs and tradition, their
ways of life and thought, their personal structure will differ fundamentally, and no one has the right to take
this from them” (H. KÜNG, The Church, p. 274).
93
this model certainly eludes the solution to the problem of truth that ecumenism has to
face.1
In his book The Church in the Power of the Spirit, in a principle part on the
Church’s mark of unity, Moltmann talks about this unity, but in freedom. He is less
interested in the dogmatic and legal aspects and more interested in the evangelical ones
constituting Church unity. In reality, he does not treat the subject of unity among the
different denominational Churches, but rather talks emphatically about the unity within
one local community and its relationship with its sister Churches of the same
denomination as well as with its central authority. In fact, Church unity is not only a unity
among denominational Churches or among the Churches within one denomination, but
also a unity within one local community. Wherever there is a lack of unity within any one
community, there is no unity on a larger community scale.2
For Moltmann a Church has its unity when it gathers people for fellowship and
worship in the spirit of mutual acceptance (Rom. 15:7).3 Because they gather, there is
unity; and when and where everyone is accepted by others, there is freedom. This is the
reason Moltmann title is: “Unity in Freedom”. It is “freedom and diversity.”4 Moltmann
points out that the gathering of a Christian community for baptism (Eph. 4:5; I Cor. 12:1)
and the Lord’s Supper (I Cor. 12:13; 10:17), together with its sharing the suffering
testimony and solidarity with other communities and individuals, constitutes the unity of
the Church. It is the unity of the Church and the baptised with Christ and the Spirit that
makes Church unity happen.
Moltmann admits that the Church’s unity is expressed in visible appearance and
that the Church’s unity is important. He also emphasizes that “unity does not bring
salvation, but salvation creates unity. The unity of the universal Church can be organized
through synods and offices of leadership only when unity already exists at the grassroots
1
Cf. A. SKVORCEVIC, Ecclesiologia escatologico-messsianica di Jürgen Moltmann, p. 38-42.
2
3
K. Barth also explains the meaning of the ‘unity mark’ of the credo intended by the Council of Nicene-
Constantinople in relation to the diversity within unity: that the unity of the Church be visible in a
particular community gathering (cf. K. BARTH, Dogmatics in Outline, London: SCM Press, 1949, p. 133,
trans. by G. T. Thomson from the German Dogmatik im Grundriss, Chr. Kaiser Verlag and Evangelischer
Verlag, 1947).
4
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 343; cf. The Spirit of Life, p. 194-195.
94
level. This unity, however, does not signify “the highest office in the Church,” but rather
the existing “community.”1
Moltmann also accentuates mutual recognition and co-operation between the local
community and the Church of higher level. The Church should be both “from above” and
“from below”. It is reasonable to assume that a trend of protestant theology, putting in
perspective the role of the hierarchy and thus promotes that of each member of the
Church, motivated Moltmann and other protestant theologians to underscore the
gathering of the faithful as the first constituent of the unity of the Church.
Unity is both a mark of Christ’s Church and a confessional mark. That through
this mark, “the world may believe” (John 17:21). In this sense, the unity of the Church is
not only an inward orientation, but also outward reaching. Indeed, because the Church’s
unity has a messianic character, it has to include all people in its messianic mission. In so
doing, the Church helps unite all people, including the poor, the marginalized and
sinners.2 The Church has to reach out to all, particularly the poor, the marginalized and
sinners, not only outside the Church but also within a local community.
While acknowledging that only God can grant the Church unity and the limitation
of human effort in restoring Church unity, at the same time we all realize that Churches
and each one of us still have a duty to work for the visible unity of the Church through a
life of renewal. The holiness of the Church and Christians will strengthen the Church’s
unity.
2. THE HOLY CHURCH

Since the beginning of its existence the Church has recognized itself as holy. The
Church members were called holy (Acts. 9:13). The Church was addressed as a “holy
temple” (Eph. 2: 21), and Christians were invited to be holy in the Church (1Pet. 2: 5).
When St. Ignatius wrote the Church at Tralles, called it “the Holy Church”.3 Tertullian
also called the Church of Christ “the holy Church”.4 However, in the history of the
Church there has been no lack of mistakes and wrongdoings conducted by Christians and
church dignitaries. If Church members are not holy, can we say that the Church is holy?
1
2
3
Cf. ST. IGNATIUS, Trall., 1.
4
Cf. TERTULLIAN, Adv. Marc. V, 4.
95
If the Church of Christ is a community of people of God whose members are sinners,
doesn’t this mean that the Church is unholy? In this context, we need to find out what the
meaning of the Church’s holiness is.
2.1. Holiness
In the Old Testament, God promised to make his people holy. God chose Israel
among the nations to make his own possession: “You shall be to me a kingdom of priests,
a holy nation”(Ex. 19:6). The holy chosen people of Israel was taught to distance itself
from idolatry (Deut. 7: 1-6). God watched over it and protected it: “Sacred to the Lord
was Israel, the first fruits of his harvest; Should anyone presume to partake of them, evil
would befall him, says the Lord” (Jer. 2:3).
The Church in the New Testament inherits the concept of holiness in the Old
Testament: “Be holy, for I, the Lord, your God, am holy”(Lev. 19:2). St. Paul addresses
to the Corinthians: “You were sanctified… in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in
the Spirit of our God” (I Cor. 6:11). Like the mark of the Church’s unity, the Church’s
holiness is the fulfillment of the promise of God. In the New Testament, when the Church
is called holy, it means that it has partaken in a new creation redeemed by Jesus. The
Church and its members have a holiness as their goal Jesus invites them to: “So be
perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect”(Mt. 5: 48). According to Moltmann, the
Church of the holy belongs to the Trinity. They are “God’s chosen ones” (Col. 3: 12).
The people of God once called and justified by Jesus Christ, continue to be sanctified. It
is the Holy Spirit who continues to lead the people of God in holiness: “The Holy Spirit,
as the eschatological ‘advance gift’ of glory and the power of the new creation, is
determinative of the idea of holiness. The people who are called through the gospel and
are chosen, justified and sanctified are ‘led by the Spirit of God’ (Rom. 8:14).”1 In this
sense, Moltmann considers that the Church is a new creation and lives in a new era. God
creates the world, but Jesus renews it. There is a continuation between the Old and New
people of God and at the same time there are differences between them.
1
96
2.2. Jesus and the Holy Church

Moltmann emphasizes the role of Jesus as the origin of the Holy Church: the
Church is holy not because its members are holy or because of its cultic celebrations, but
because Jesus justifies it and its members. People become members of the people of God
when they are washed clean through baptism. Jesus is the source and the fountain of the
holiness of the Church.1 The people of God becomes holy because Jesus died on the cross
to pardon their sins: “Christ loved the Church and handed himself over for her to sanctify
her, cleansing her by that bath of water with the word” (Eph. 5: 25-26). The Church can
continue to be sanctified only if it looks up to Jesus’ cross and suffers with him, by
partaking in the suffering of people in the world. Thus, the church community of
“justified sinners is at the same time the fellowship of the people called to service for the
kingdom of God and believers who are equipped with the powers of the Spirit.”2 Given
the fact that the Church belongs to Jesus and becomes his spouse and body, just as there
is no separation between the sufferings and glorification of the person of Jesus, there is a
strict bond between the glorious future and present sufferings of the Church, the spouse
of Jesus. It is important to emphasize that because the Church belongs to Jesus as his
spouse, it is sanctified and becomes holy, and at the same time is sent into the world to
suffer with the world.3
St. Thomas Aquinas writes: “To be a Church in splendour, without spot or
wrinkle, is the ultimate goal to which we are being led by the passion of Christ. This then
will come about in heaven, not on earth.”4 Moltmann echoes St. Thomas’ idea of the
inseparable bond between the suffering and holiness: “This remark (of St. Thomas)
indicates that sanctification does not only come about through active service in the world
but is also, and even more, suffered. The sign of the sanctification of the Church and its
members are in a particular way the signs of its suffering, its persecution because of its
resistance, and its poverty in the ground of its hope.”5
1
Cf. ibid., p. 338, 353-354.
2
Ibid., p. 354.
3
Cf. ibid., p. 354-355.
4
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologicae, III, q. 8. 3. 2, in Summa Theologica of St. Thomas, vol. IV,
Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classics, 1981, p. 2071 (trans. by Fathers of the Egnlish Dominican
Province, originally published in 1911).
5
97
2.3. Setting apart

The meaning of the Church’s holiness is being set apart. The Church is set apart
from the rest of the world in two senses. First, in the sense of the Old Testament, the
people of God were chosen among the world to be sanctified (cf. Ex. 19:6). Secondly, it
has to live differently from the world, not conforming to it (cf. Deut. 7: 1-6). The New
Testament also says that the Church has to live in the world as wheat thrives alongside
with tares (Mt. 13:24-30). Although the Church becomes part of the world and suffers
with it, it does not conform to the world, as St. Paul says: “Do not conform yourself to
this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the
will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect” (Rom. 12:2).
Following what St. Paul says, Moltmann asserts that the Church cannot mirror the
world while renewing itself.1 It should not accommodate itself to the world: “The Church
cannot be renewed by social and political criticism from the outside. Basically, we do not
need an accommodation of the Church to the modern world and its sociopolitical
movements.”2 According to Moltmann, the Church needs to hold onto its identity, which
is anchored in Jesus Christ; otherwise, it will be more influenced by society than by Him:
“Whether a Church or a Christian community in a divided, oppressive and alienated
society has a divisive, alienating and oppressive effect depends ultimately on whether
Jesus has become alien to it or whether He is the Lord who determines its existence.”3
Although the Church lives in the midst of the world, it will not hear the voice of the
world, but Jesus’ voice. The Church receives the light from Jesus and lives in the world
in order to illuminate the world; it exists along side with the world but separates itself
from the world like wheat from tares. Moltmann writes: “The social crisis of the Church
in the contemporary world is precisely its identity crisis. The problem of its credibility in
the world stems from its faith crisis. The Church will be renewed and will become a
bearer of the freedom of Christ to the extent that it remembers Christ and Him alone and
hears no other voice but His… The more the Church remembers Christ alone and
1
We will see in Part III of this research that according to Moltmann, the world is not totally negative. In
this sense, the Church does not have the intention (will not be able) of uprooting or replacing the world, but
will only help to improve its condition.
2
J. MOLTMANN, “Liberation in the light of hope” in Ecumenical Review 26, 1974, p. 415-429, at 422.
3
Ibidem.
98
witnesses exclusively to His messianic mission in the world, the less it is merely a
religious image of society”1
H. U. Von Balthasar says that the notion of ‘setting apart’ can be misunderstood
from within and outside the Church. From this notion, one may come to mistaken
conclusions, such as “a sinner who has but a dead faith cannot be a member of the
Church.” In fact, these interpretations have already been adopted in the history of the
Church: the Donatists considered the Church “immaculate”, and the Pelagianism
assigned the Church the character of impeccability.2 Since Moltmann does not consider
the oppressors excluded from the Church, but calls for their liberation (both the
oppressors and the oppressed need to be liberated), I would infer that although the
oppressors seems to have a dead faith (as expressed in their acts of oppression), they are
not excluded from the Church, but are also the object of liberation and salvation.3 In fact,
the Church is a community of both sinners and saints: “It only becomes the congregation
sanctorum by accepting its existence as communio peccatorum.”4
The holiness of the Church also has an eschatological characteristic. That is to
say, God continues to sanctify his Church to the end. In this sense Moltmann says:
“Holiness means here not a higher sphere of divine power, before which people shudder
and shrink back; it must be understood as a verbal noun. Holiness consists of being made
holy, in sanctification, the subject of the activity being God (I Thess. 5: 23; II Thess. 2:
13).”5 The Church becomes holy daily in its pilgrimage: it is semper reformata et
reformanda.
2.4. Reformata and reformanda

Moltmann indicates that the Church semper reformata et reformanda means a
Church of paradoxical identity. The Church is at the same time the object of a faith which
1
J. MOLTMANN, “Liberation in the light of hope”, p. 422 and 424.
2
Cf. H. U. VON BALTHASAR, Qui est l’Église?, Saint-Maur: Éditions Parole et Silence, 2000, p. 79-81. For
a further study on the Donatists and the Pelagianism, consult ST. AUGUSTIN, The Writings against the
Manichaens, and against the Donatists, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 4,
Massachusetts: Hendricson Publishers, Inc., 1995, p. 98-365, 411-651; ST. AUGUSTIN: Anti-Pelagian
Writings, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 5, Massachusetts: Hendricson Publishers, Inc.,
1995.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 18, 352.
4
Ibid., p. 26.
5
Ibid., p. 353.
99
points to holiness1 and the experience which points to sinfulness.2 One can find a tension
between faith and experience in the Church. The Church is simul iusta ac peccatrix.3
When the Church professes its holiness, it recognizes that according to the will of God
the Church has been sanctified by Jesus Christ, and continues to be sanctified. When the
Church recognizes its sinfulness,4 it acknowledges that it needs to renew itself daily until
the end of time.5
Moltmann indicates that the Church semper reformata et reformanda at the same
time lives and anticipates holiness. Indeed, within the sinfulness there is hope. The
Church always relies on God’s promise of sanctification and forgiveness of sin. It always
realizes that it is the spouse of Jesus. In this very awareness and self-acknowledgment of
its own nature, the Church situates itself in holiness and is fit to be called holy, as
Moltmann says: “The Church is therefore holy precisely at the point where it
acknowledges its sins and the sins of mankind and trusts to justification through God.”6
When the Church publicly admits its mistakes, the Church shows the world that its
liberation and justification are taking place within itself.7 He also says that the Church is
1
The Church already has experiences of holiness; however, its expectant holiness is still a goal.
2
Of course, the Church also experiences the holiness. A great many theologians hold that the Church is
indeed sinful whether due to its member’s sins or its own wrong policies and imperfect structure. Theology
has always simultaneously treated the two aspects communio peccatorum and communio sanctorum of the
Church. However, the aspect communio peccatorum has been studied in-depth far less. According to K.
Rahner, more attention should be paid to it for two reasons: it affects the faith of each individual Christian
and has a dogmatic dimension, i.e., a question of God’s revelation (cf. K. RAHNER, Theological
Investigations, vol. 6, p. 253-294). For a further study on the sinfulness of the Church, see B. E. HINZE,
“Ecclesial repentance and the demands of dialogue” in Theological studies 61, 2000, p. 207-238; JOHN
PAUL II, Reconciliatio et paenitentia, 1984, n. 16; and Sollicitudo rei socialis, 1987, n. 36; M. O’KEEFE,
What Are They Saying About Social Sin?, New York: Paulist, 1990; G. BAUM, “Structure of Sins” in G.
BAUM and R. ELLSBERG (eds), The Logic of Solidarity: Commentaries on Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical
On Social Concern, New York: Orbis, 1989, p. 110-126; M. SIEVERNICH, “Social Sin and Its
Acknowledgement” in M. COLLINS and D. POWER (eds), The Fate of Confession, Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1978, p. 52-63; C. C. ANDERSON, “Bonaventure and the sin of the Church” in Theological Studies 63,
2002, p. 267-289.
3
J. Famerée explains aptly that in saying the Church is ‘sinful’, one cannot omit ‘and at the same time
holy’. In other words, the phrase ‘the Church is sinful’ is acceptable only next to the phrase ‘and at the
same time holy’ (cf. J. FAMERÉE, “Ecclésiologie catholique. Différences séparatrices et rapprochements
avec les autres Églises”, p.34).
4
We should note that sinfulness is not a mark of the Church.
5
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church of the Power Spirit, p. 20-26. According to E. Schillebeeckx, the three
notions of holiness, infallibility and renewal are closely connected. Although God promises the Church his
protection from fallibility and makes it holy, it needs constantly to renew itself (cf. E. SCHILLEBEECKX, The
Mission of the Church, New York: The Seabury Press, 1973, p. 8-12).
6
7
Ibid., p. 354.
100
being sanctified daily; it is not yet totally holy. In fact, the Church is a community of
sinful human beings with its leaders who are sinners. Therefore, “in the confession of sin
and faith in justification the Church is simultaneously communio peccatorum and
communio sanctorum. It is in this very thing that its sanctification, and consequently its
holiness, consists.”1 “This means for the Church as a whole that the communio
peccatorum it acknowledges in confessing guilt is its past, and the communio sanctorum
that it believes in believing in the forgiveness of sin is its future. It testifies to the
fellowship of justified sinners, which acknowledges both, in the perpetual conversion
from that past to this future.”2
According to Moltmann, the most prioritized aspect of the Church’s conversion
and reformation is its interior renewal: “What is required today is not adroit adaptation to
changed social conditions, but the inner renewal of the Church by the spirit of Christ, the
power of the coming kingdom.”3 The only method of renewing the Church is mirroring
Jesus Christ. There is a possibility that the Church, when reforming itself, be influenced
more by the society rather than by its head which is Jesus Christ.4 The Church may
erroneously accommodate itself to the world and thus Jesus becomes alien to the Church.
To avoid a false renewal, the Church must not lose sight of Jesus who should remain the
center of the Church. He “is the criticism of the Church from inside.”5
We are already familiar with the call for reforming the Church from within;
however, it is noteworthy to specify what Moltmann means here. The interior renewal of
the Church does not exclusively entail a new Church structure, but it most of all requires
a gospel spirit in the Church which allows each and every Christian to contribute to the
Church and the world according to his/her particular gift. With this spirit, the Church will
become a charismatic congregation, in which “there is no fundamental distinction
1
Ibid., p. 353.
2
Ibid., p. 354-355.
3
Ibid. p. 3. Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Liberation in the light of hope”, p. 422.
4
Congar says that the Church reformata et semper reformanda needs to know what to retain and what to
reform. According to him, there is a distinction between the central and peripheral organs of the Church.
The central organs need to be preserved in order to guarantee continuity, while the peripheral organs need
to be transformed to make progress. The Church is at the same time continuity and progress. It progresses
but within continuity. In order to retain the continuity and at the same time allow progress, the Church’s
reformation always has to relate to tradition, the treasure contained in texts and realities as well as its very
continuity (cf. Y. CONGAR, Vraie et fausse réforme dans l’Église, p. 251, 301-317).
5
J. MOLTMANN, “Liberation in the light of hope”, p., 422; cf. p. 424.
101
between clergy and laity. Charismatically the whole people of God is embodied
religiously, personally, politically and socially in God’s all-encompassing liberation
movement.”1 Moltmann criticizes Western ecclesiology, which overemphasizes the
ministries of the Church but overlooks the charisma of the people of God: “The
theological justification for the authority of the ministry has often altogether by-passed
the existence of the congregation.”2 For Moltmann, the unity and the holiness of the
Church do not depend exclusively on the hierarchy and ministries, but rather relates
significantly to the whole Church community which allows each and every member to
express his/her charisma.
In view of becoming a charismatic Church, the Church’s reformation from within
must be heralded by the change of heart of individual Christians. In fact, Church
reformation in the first place necessitates the reformation of individual Christians, a
reformation of heart, will, and action which have direct influence on the reformation of
the Church’s structure, form, administration, and external conditions. Moltmann holds
that the Apostles’ Creed, when confessing the Church of “the communion of saints”
acknowledges that the Christian community consists of human sinners who are justified
and sanctified. This community is “a community of love in mutual compassion and
sacrifice.”3 Moltmann observes that the Augsburg Confession in Article VII rightly
defines the Church as the assembly of believers to whom the Gospel is preached and the
sacraments are administered according to the gospel; however, he also comments that
both the Apostles’ Creed and the Augsburg Confession fail to mention the aspect of love
in the Church. For him, the “saints” in the Church have a relationship both to God and to
each other; in this sense, love and holiness are inseparable.4
Because the Church is called to holiness by the grace of the justifying action of
Jesus, it reaches out to the whole world, which is guilty and blemished by sins of
division, selfishness, injustice and malevolence. The Church is holy not only by self-
1
Ibid., p. 424.
2
J. MOLTMANN, “The fellowship of the Holy Spirit - Trinitarian Pneumatology”, p. 293.
3
4
Cf. ibid., p. 118-119. Y. Congar, recalling the teaching of Pope Pius XI, also considers holiness and love
for God and neighbors as the first step in reformation: “Toute réforme vraie et durable, a écrit Pie XI, en
dernière analyse a eu son point de départ dans la sainteté, dans des hommes qui étaient enflammés et
poussées par l’amour de Dieu et du prochain” Y. CONGAR, Vrai et fausse réforme dans l’Église, p. 231; cf.
Pius XI, Encycl. Mit brennender Sorge, 14 mars 1937 (Acta Ap. Sedis, 1937, p. 154).
102
converting but also by converting the world at the same time. Self-conversion implies
individuals as well as the Church as a whole, i.e., its form, structure, administration,
policy and vision. In other words, the Church is “ecclesia reformata et semper
reformanda.”1 Converting the world means improving the unrighteous condition of the
world.
The Church’s semper reformanda necessarily translates into the reformation of
the world because the Church is there for the world, which is included in the kingdom of
God. In this sense, the Church is holy not only for itself, but also for the world. Only a
holy entity like the Church can transform the unholy world. Moltmann says: “People who
sanctify their lives in this way come up against the ethics of the society in which they
live, for God’s will is more important to them than the demands and exactions of the
people who have the power. Harmony with God means confronting and confuting a
world which runs counter to God and itself.”2 Moltmann considers the reformanda et
reformata Church as “a Church under the cross.” He means by this that in transforming
the world but not conforming to it, the Church necessarily encounters misunderstanding,
opposition and persecution; Jesus received the same treatment from the world.3
In conclusion, Moltmann describes the Church reformanda et reformata as
charismatic and an exodus community.4 Within the charismatic community, all
Christians, as children of God, have freedom and do not encounter oppression from the
ruling classes. A reformed community, being charismatic, has necessarily to go out of
itself into the world to preach the gospel. Thus, the reformanda et reformata Church is at
the same time charismatic and exodus.5
2.5. Holiness in poverty

Jesus says: “Everyone will be salted with fire. Salt is good, but if salt becomes
insipid, with what will you restore its flavor? Keep salt in yourselves and you will have
peace with one another” (Mk. 9:49-50). The Church’s holiness, as well as Christians’, is
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p.355.
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Source of Life, p. 49.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Liberation in the light of hope”, p. 422; Hope and Planning, London: SCM Press,
1971, p.145-151, trans by Margaret Clarkson from the German Perspektiven der Theologie: Gesammelte
Aufsätze, München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag and Mainz: Matthias-Grünewalt Verlag, 1968.
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, Theology of Hope, p. 304-338.
5
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Liberation in the light of hope”, p. 424.
103
accompanied by trial. In fact, the Church has but to live in the world where are the poor -
both financially and spiritually. What should the Church do with these people and how
can it bear witness to them? The Church is renewing not only the world but also itself
when it involves itself in the world: “The Church is therefore sanctified wherever it
participates in the lowliness, helplessness, poverty and suffering of Christ. Its glory is
manifested through the sign of poverty. When believers take up their cross, the kingdom
of God is manifested to the world. In this sense we can say that the Church is sanctified
in this “perverse world” through the signs of poverty, suffering and oppression.”1 The
Church becomes holy not only by distancing itself from the world, but also by involving
itself in the world. The Church becomes poor with the poor, suffers with the suffering
and is persecuted with the oppressed.
Moltmann entitles this section “Holiness in Poverty”. Why doesn’t he call it, for
example, “Holiness in Sinfulness”? One can account for this in various ways. One of
them may be: First of all, sinfulness is not only a negative but also an inactive nature
within the Church, while poverty here is not about the poverty of the Church, but of
people in society. Secondly, poverty means not only a lack of material wealth but also
suffering. Poverty means all aspects that disadvantage people materially, socially,
spiritually, emotionally and psychologically. Moltmann wants to indicate that the Church,
in order to be sanctified, needs to get outside itself and enter the poor who suffer poverty.
This is an active procedure, an act of reaching outside the Church. Of course, the Church
has to get rid of its sinfulness, but this is only half of the whole process. The other half is
repairing the damage done by sinful people who cause poverty in the world, i.e. liberating
the poor. This second part of the same journey is an active course of action. That is why
Moltmann calls this section “Holiness in Poverty,” which does not contradict the title
“Holiness in Sinfulness.”
Furthermore, the Church is the Church of people and for people. Its members are
both the rich and the poor. How does Moltmann intend to connect poverty with holiness?
He says: “If God’s strength is made perfect in weakness (I Cor. 12: 9) then his holiness is
also mighty in poverty… The Church is not yet sanctified by poverty if it does not
become the Church for the poor and especially honor alms given for the poor… Christ
1
104
became poor in order through his poverty to make many rich. The disciples became poor
in order to fill the world with the gospel. So the Church too will only be poor in this sense
if it consecrates everything it has to service for the kingdom of God, investing it in the
messianic mission to the world (I Cor. 15: 43).”1
Moltmann means that the Church is holy when it preaches the Gospel to the poor,
when it transforms the world. But the Church can do so only if it has solidarity with the
poor, liberating them from poverty and thus bringing them freedom: “The poor Church
will therefore have to be understood as the Church of the poor, as the fellowship, that is,
in which the poor arrive at freedom and become the upholders of the kingdom… In this
sense Christian poverty, as an expression of love, is solidarity with the poor and is a
protest against poverty.”2 By having fellowship for the poor, the Church has fellowship
with the suffering Christ. This is what Jesus says: “ Whatever you did for one of these
least brothers of mine, you did for me” (Mt. 25: 40). “The fellowship of the poor and
suffering Christ is the secret of the ‘holy Church’ and the ‘communion of saints’. In his
fellowship the Church becomes the poor people of the coming kingdom and so becomes
holy and blessed.”3 Moltmann shows that by becoming poor with the poor the Church
becomes holy, for Jesus identifies himself with the poor, and thus sanctifies the Church.
It is not the acts the Church does that sanctify the Church, but rather Jesus who sanctifies
the Church through these acts. Therefore, it is correct to say ‘Holiness in Poverty’
belongs to the ‘holiness mark’ of Church.
3. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

The history of ecclesiastical theology has seen no great disagreement on the
meaning of the expression “catholic”. “Catholic”, in Greek καθολικός, coming from
καθόλου (adv.), means in general, on the whole, universal. Only recently, has the
Protestant Church wanted to clarify the term “catholic”, saying it should not refer
exclusively to the Church under the Pope, but that the Protestant Church should also be
called “catholic”. Aware of the reality of Christian pluralism and that Christianity is, and
probably will continue to constitute a minority in proportion to the other world religious
1
Ibid., p. 356.
2
Ibidem.
3
Ibid., p. 357.
105
affiliations, can we still say that the Church is one and universal? Can the Church be
catholic while a majority of the population in the world do not belong to it and the
Church itself is divided?
3.1. Catholicity and unity

The expression “catholic” was first used by St. Ignatius of Antioch: “Wherever
the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of all people] also be; even as, wherever
Christ is, there is the catholic Church.”1 The Church is understood as “catholic” in the
sense that it encompasses all people in both spatial and temporal extension. Hence,
“catholicity” signifies the unity of all people. We can interpret the words of St. Ignatius
in this way: Jesus Christ is present where people gather with their bishop to celebrate the
Eucharist, which is the expression of unity. People under their bishop are under the
lordship of Christ. St. Ignatius wanted to express the idea of “catholicity” in the
continuity from Jesus to bishops, heads of the Church, essential to its unity. In harmony
with the teaching of St. Ignatius, Vatican Council II also affirms: “The individual bishops
are the visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches, which are
constituted after the model of the universal Church; it is in these and formed out of them
that the one and unique Catholic Church exists. And for that reason precisely each bishop
represents his own Church, whereas all, together with the Pope, represent the whole
Church in a bond of peace, love and unity.”2 Moltmann remarks, in accordance with the
teaching of St. Ignatius and the Roman Catholic Church: “If … the bishop represents
Christ and hence the unity of the Church, then the Church’s catholicity is determined by
the universal, all-uniting presence of Christ.”3 In any case, Moltmann correctly shows:
according to St. Ignatius, where a Church is gathered under a bishop, there is the Catholic
Church. This is the first aspect of “catholicity”, which is unity.4
1
ST. IGNATIUS, Smyrn. 8.
2
VATICAN II, Lumen Gentium, 23.
3
4
What kind of unity do Christian Churches expect? Pannenberg recommends a unity of the Church that
respects the differences of all Churches: “A unity of Christians through reciprocal recognition in faith and
love, accompanied by continuing differences in doctrine and polity because of the shared knowledge that
one’s own faith and polity are provisional, this kind of Christian unity would have no need to shut itself off
from other religions in an exclusivist attitude.” (W. PANNENBERG, The Church, p. 153). J. Cheriampanatt, a
Catholic, thinks that “Hence, in the new ecclesiology of koinonia in plurality, envisaged by the Council, the
[Roman] Catholic Church has to take genuine diversities seriously. Only when the Catholic Church puts
into practice the Conciliar principle “unity only in essentials” [will] her ecumenical prospects with the
106
Moltmann complains that the ‘catholicity’ of the Church, i.e., the ‘unity of all
people in the Church of Christ, is threatened in the third millennium by the new
confessionalism, fundamentalism and nationalism. In other words, recently, each
confessionalism (particularly Catholicism), when trying to (re)evangelize Europe and
other parts of the world for its own sake, weakens the universal and catholic lordship of
Jesus Christ in the universal-Catholic Church. The Roman Catholics and Orthodox
Christians argued about church buildings in Ukraine, the Protestant Churches organized a
Protestant European assembly in Budapest in 1992, and the Orthodox Churches, with a
nationalist texture, opposed any non-Orthodox evangelization in their Orthodox
countries. These are negative signs of the Church’s catholicity. Moltmann indicates his
further anxiety that when confessionalism floods into Europe, it will necessarily produce
“confessional states in which religious minorities are discriminated against, as is already
the case with Protestants in Poland and in the Czech Republic. We will experience a new
wave of Protestant fundamentalism.”1 Furthermore, he argues that if the Church has its
center in Jesus Christ, there is no need of a “one-sided Catholic or Protestant ‘new
evangelization’ of Europe.”2
Moltmann seems to direct the meaning of ‘catholicity’ into a new perspective,
which is the ‘unity of humanity’. According to him, in the end God will unite all
humanity in his kingdom; therefore, at present, the Church, in view of the coming
kingdom, should envision and promote a united humanity of love, without boundary.3
Moltmann writes further: “The universal presupposition of the particular history of God’s
dealing with Israel and with Christianity is found in the reality that the God who liberates
and redeems them is the creator of all human beings and things…, who will bring his
claim upon his creation to realization in his kingdom. Thus his liberating and redeeming
action in history reveals the true future of human beings.”4 I observe that in the
separated Church will be brighter” (J. CHERIAMPANATT, The Catholic Principles of Ecumenism: Towards a
New Theology of Koinonia in Plurality, p. 171). In this sense, “unity only in essentials” implies acceptance
of the diversity of what is non-essential, accompanied by unity in what is essential. ‘Catholicity’ should
embrace all particularities and diversities.
1
J. MOLTMANN, “Christianity in the Third Millennium”, p.79.
2
Ibid., p.78.
3
Cf. ibid., p.79. In relation to this theme of catholicity, a study of ‘the unity of mankind’ will be explored
later.
4
J. MOLTMANN, “A Christian Declaration on Human Rights” in Reformed World 34, 1976, p. 58-72, at 61.
107
ecclesiology of Moltmann, the theme of the perichoretic unity of the Trinity and that of
the catholicity and unity of the Church are related insofar as both are not exclusive but
open to humanity and the world.
3.2. Catholicity and universality

Because ‘catholicity’ connotes ‘unity’, the ‘Catholic Church’ necessarily involves
“universality” in both time and space. The Church’s openness to the universe is another
aspect. The terms ‘catholicity’ and ‘universality’ are correlated. The Church’s catholicity
means the Church’s unity in extension over space and time, whereas the Church’s unity
means the Church’s catholicity in its inner wholeness. In the Church’s unity, there is
opened-ness to catholicity and in catholicity there is proclivity towards unity.1
St. Ignatius says: “Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” So the
Church must have Jesus Christ as its essence in order to really be catholic. “This follows
inevitably from its definition as the Church of Christ. Being entirely related to Christ, it is
related to the whole world, for whose reconciliation Christ was sacrificed by God, and for
whose liberation and unification all power was given in heaven and on earth (cf. Eph. 1:
20ff.).”2 The lordship of Christ already embraces the whole universe, and in the end he
will summon and unite all in his Kingdom. Therefore, the Catholic Church is “catholic”
because it fulfills its commission of bringing the Good News to the entire world, looking
forwards to the coming Kingdom of God. Moltmann links the aspect of the universality
of the mark of catholicity to the universal property of the kingdom of God, which all
humanity anticipates in hope: “The universality of hope bears the imprint of the
universality of the Creator and the Liberator of the world, and no one else’s. This is why
this hope, centred on God’s kingdom, reaches beyond the boundaries of the personality,
beyond the boundaries of the Church, the peoples of mankind and human societies, right
through to nature itself.”3
One should not overlook the fact that Moltmann wants to emphasize that the
Church is catholic because it is indissolubly related to the lordship of Christ and his
kingdom: “the attribute ‘catholic’ applies to the lordship of Christ, through which the
1
2
Ibidem.
3
J. MOLTMANN, “God’s Kingdom as the Meaning of Life and of the World” in Concilium 108, 1977, p. 97-
103, at 102.
108
universe is summed up and united, and the kingdom of God, which the lordship of Christ
serves.”1
The notion of the universality in the mark of catholicity also means the Church’s
extension in time. It is often tempting to think of extension towards the future. However,
Moltmann also mentions extension backwards in time. Therefore, the dead are also
included in the Catholic Church. “It reaches beyond the living to the dead and finds a
future for those that have gone before in the resurrection. It is precisely this hope for the
dead which shows that the universalism of God’s kingdom extends beyond all modern,
earthly, present, evolutionary or revolutionary universalism.”2 There is communion
between living and deceased Catholics who all wait for the general resurrection. That is
why in the liturgy, the Church prays for all mankind.3
Moltmann regrets that since the Reformation conflict period, the term ‘catholic’
has been exclusively reserved for the Roman Catholic Church, while other Christian
Churches are not called “catholic” or included in “the Catholic Church”.4 Indeed, the
term ‘catholic’ cannot be exclusively attributed to the ‘Roman Catholic Church’, but all
Churches of Christ are rightly called ‘catholic’. It is necessary to note that when a person
belongs to the Roman Catholic Church5 he certainly belongs to the Catholic Church,
while a person belonging to the Catholic Church does not necessarily belong to the
Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is wider than the Roman Catholic Church,
and both have the mark of catholicity. In fact, Moltmann says: “The presence of Christ is
experienced both in the Churches and between them, wherever we are gathered in his
name. Catholicity is a mark of the presence of Christ. It extends far beyond the Roman
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Church of the Power of the Spirit, p. 349.
2
J. MOLTMANN, “God’s Kingdom as the Meaning of Life and of the World”, p. 102.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 349; JUSTIN, Dial., 81, 4.
4
5
In this section, I am discussing the mark of catholicity of the Church; therefore, I need to use the term ‘the
Catholic Church’, distinguished from ‘the Roman Catholic Church’, to specify the mark of the Church’s
catholicity. I distinguish the Catholic Church from the Roman Catholic Church, acknowledging that the
Roman Catholic Church is also the Catholic Church, and realizing that many other authors use the term
‘Catholic Church’ to designate the Roman Catholic Church. The term ‘Roman Catholic Church’ can be
misconstrued as too local and particular as in contras to universal and general. In other places in this text,
the term ‘the Catholic Church’ can designate ‘the Roman Catholic Church’, depending on the context.
Today, many Catholics prefer the term ‘the Catholic Church’ for the Church under the Pope to the term ‘the
Roman Catholic Church’ due to the reason just mentioned above.
109
Catholic form of the Church.”1 The Church is the Church of the people of God, which is
catholic and, thus, open to the people of the world. Furthermore, Moltmann is certainly
right in his complaint that the term ‘catholic’ should not be exclusive of the Roman
Catholic Church, in the sense that Protestant Churches have been fulfilling their mission
of making the Church ‘universal’.
3.3. Catholicity and orthodoxy

According to Moltmann, the meaning of the term “catholic” used by St. Ignatius
at first did not designate a truth mark of the Church. “It was only in the quarrels with the
heretics and schismatics in the first centuries that “catholic” was used as the mark of ‘the
true Church’, the sole and rightful Church. The term then included its quality, its fullness
of truth, its unity and holiness in Christ, and its apostolic legitimation.”2 Accordingly,
since the council of Constantinople, a third denotation has been included in the term
“catholic”, as orthodox, as opposed to heresy, and generally as opposed to local schisms.3
Clement of Alexandria used the term “catholic” in this sense when he exposed the
heresies as “posterior” to the Catholic Church. Whereas Moltmann says that the term
“catholicity”, designated by St. Ignatius, did not mean ‘truth’ for the Church, on the
contrary, Y. Congar argues that St. Ignatius already assigned it three values: totality,
authenticity and truth. A Church is a true Church when it is under a bishop who assures
its continuity and participates in the authority of the supreme bishop who is invisible (the
Father and Son).4 Furthermore, according to Congar, while the meanings of “catholicity”
as truth, authenticity and orthodoxy go back to the earliest periods, St. Cyril of Jerusalem
lent priority to the aspects of extension and universality as meanings of “catholicity”.5
3.4. Catholicity and particularity

Since the ‘catholic’ Church implies unity and universality, it necessarily embraces
all particular Churches; otherwise it should not be called “catholic”. A particular Church
1
J. MOLTMANN, “The Church as Communion,” in Concilium, 1993/1, p. 136-138, at 137.
2
3
Cf. F. W. GREEN (ed.), The Oecumenical Documents on the Faith (4th ed.), London: Methuen, 1950, p.
74. See also H. B. SWETE, The Holy Catholic Church: The Communion of Saints - A Study in the Apostles’
Creed, London: MacMillan, 1915, p. 35-41: TERTULLIAN (Praescr., 26) and CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (Hieros.
Catech., XVIII, 26) both opposed ‘catholic’ to ‘heretical’.
4
Cf. Y. CONGAR, L’Église une, sainte, catholique et apostolique, p. 151.
5
Cf. ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, Catech., XVIII, 23. Y. CONGAR, Église et Papauté, p.33.
110
is indeed a ‘catholic’ Church, however, only when it is fully in communion with the
universal Church of Christ with regard to its harmony in proclamation, sacraments,
doctrine, brotherhood and leadership.1 On the other hand, if a Church is in discord with
the universal Church of Christ, it separates itself from the “catholic” Church. In this
sense, Moltmann says: “The Church of Christ exists in one particular place and also in
many places. Its must therefore present its unity supra-regionally. Every individual
congregation needs here the fellowship and concord with the Church as a whole, which
ultimately means concord in proclamation, sacraments and brotherhood with the Church
universal.”2 Here Moltmann affirms two points: first, the Church of Christ embraces all
and each particular Church. Moltmann is consistent on this point, because according to
him, the element of the gathering of the congregation determines the existence of a
Church. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present wherever there is a gathering of a
Christian congregation. Second, a particular Church needs to be in harmony with the
universal Church of Christ. Here, Moltmann does not specify whether this condition of
harmony is the precondition for a particular Church in order to be a Catholic Church, or
whether it is a consequence, i.e. the presence of Christ in the gathering of a Christian
congregation makes it a Catholic Church.3
It is not surprising to see that among the aspects that constitute the communion of
a local Church with the universal Church, Moltmann does not mention the visible and
representative authority of bishops. On the contrary, Vatican Council II seems to
emphasize the role of the bishop in each local community extensively: “This Church of
1
Leadership here does not exclusively mean hierarchy, but rather means the leaders of congregations.
2
3
Calling the Church ‘the people of God’, Vatican Council II dedicates extensive teaching to the local
Church. In fact, the Church is universal when it is present in every local Church. For the sake of the
universality of the Church, local Churches exist. The universal Church does not dissipate local Churches.
People first of all belong to their local Church and participate in the activities and mission of the Church
under the guidance of their bishops. “In each local assembly of the faithful they [priests] represent in a
certain sense the bishop, with whom they are associated in all trust and generosity; in part they take upon
themselves his duties and solicitude and in their daily toils discharge them. Those who, under the authority
of the bishop, sanctify and govern that portion of the Lord’s flock assigned to them render the universal
Church visible in their locality and contribute efficaciously towards building up the whole body of Christ”
(VATICAN II, Lumen Gentium, n. 28; cf. Eph. 4:12). The most local level of a particular Church is a Church
presided over by a priest in communion with his bishop. Therefore, the universal Church, in its extreme
horizon, embraces all particular communities. As Vatican Council II says: “Gladly constituting themselves
models of the flock (cf. 1Pet. 5:3), they (priests) should preside over and serve their local community in
such a way that it may deserve to be called by the name which is given to the unique People of God in its
entirety, that is to say, the Church of God” (VATICAN II, Lumen Gentium, n. 28).
111
Christ is really present in all legitimately organized local groups of the faithful, which,
insofar as they are united to their pastors, are also quite appropriately called Churches in
the New Testament… In these communities, though they may often be small and poor, or
existing in the Diaspora, Christ is present through whose power and influence the One,
Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is constituted.” 1
According to Vatican II, of course, a local Church under the leadership of a
bishop still needs to be in communion with Peter’s successor; otherwise it will be an
independent and separated Church: “Holding a rightful place in the communion of the
Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions, without
prejudice to the Chair of Peter which presides over the whole assembly of charity, and
protects their legitimate variety while at the same time taking care that these differences
do not hinder unity, but rather contribute to it.”2 Here, Vatican II talks about two
elements: traditions and unity. With regard to traditions, a particular Church has a
legitimacy in retaining its own traditions. However, the traditions of the universal Church
are also essential both to the universal Church and the particular Churches. The ‘Chair of
Peter’ has a duty both of protecting the traditions of the universal Church of Christ and
respecting the traditions of particular Churches. Traditions, whether of the universal or
particular Churches, do not hinder the Church’s unity, but rather strengthen it.
3.5. Catholicity and the Church’s universal mission

The Church is catholic when it prepares catechumens and when it welcomes new
members into the Church through baptism. Furthermore, the Church is particularly
catholic in its mission. With the vision of the coming kingdom of God, the Church is
there for all people of all races and cultures of all times. With hope in the realization of
the kingdom and the resurrection, the Church reaches out to bring the Good News to all
people. The Church is catholic because it relates to the whole world in the sense that it is
doing a mission towards it. Indeed, “its catholicity lies in the universal and, in principle,
unlimited breadth of its apostolic mission. Its participation in the catholicity of the
kingdom is realized through its mission to the world -‘to the end of the earth’(Acts 1:8)
and ‘to the close of the age’ (Matt. 28:20). The Church is catholic in its mission, because
1
VATICAN II, Lumen Gentium, n. 26.
2
Ibid. n. 13.
112
in its proclamation it appeals to people who do not belong to it, and because it does not
accept that there is any sphere which Christ would not have claimed for his own from the
beginning.”1 According to Moltmann, mission and catholicity of the Church are related;
they belong to its essence. The Church is ‘catholic’ only if it is fulfilling its mission of
presenting Jesus Christ to the whole world. He explains further: “‘Catholic’ is not an
adjective, but an attribute, which describes the movement of mission of the Church.”2
Although one can also say that the Church is not yet catholic and universal in the fullest
sense until the lordship of Christ is consummated by his return, the Church is already
catholic because it is carrying out its mission towards the Gentiles and nations of the
world: “In this sense of the missionary relation ‘to the whole’, the Church must be called
catholic from the moment of its decision in favour of the mission to the Gentiles and the
nations of the world.”3
According to Moltmann, realizing that its catholicity is still partial, the Church
needs to be patient and prudent while accomplishing its mission in view of reaching its
full catholicity in the coming kingdom. Indeed, by virtue of its catholicity, the Church
does not need to rush in order to incorporate all nations, but has to work for its catholicity
through mission in fellowship. Moltmann cautions: “If God will only be ‘all in all’ when
the rule of Christ is consummated in the rule of God, then the kingdom of glory can be
called catholic in the fullest sense at that point. The Church in history cannot therefore be
‘catholic’ in the sense of the incorporation of all people and conditions in the Church,
including Israel and the nations.”4
Although Moltmann says that all four marks of the Church (one, holy, catholic
and apostolic) are eschatological, i.e., they will be fully realized at the end of time, I
notice that Moltmann’s view on the eschatological aspect in the mark of catholicity is
fundamental and worth exploring further here. According to him, the catholicity of the
Church is eschatological not only in the sense that the Church will not be catholic until
the end of time despite its efforts at trying to include all people, but is rather
eschatological because it should not include all. According to him, the Church, in fact, is
1
2
Ibidem.
3
Ibid., p. 350.
4
Ibidem.
113
non-catholic because Israel will continue to exist parallel to it.1 “The Church should not
try to Christianize Israel, nor can it devolve into Israel.”2 It should not try to evangelize
other religions, but bear witness and respect them as they are.3
The Church is the ‘catholic Church’ because it “goes into the world and preaches
to all nations.” However, in some periods established Churches remained stationary and
focused on baptizing the children of Christian parents and preaching to them. At other
times, the Churches of Europe focused primarily on reaching out to other continents and
partially neglected their own missionary homes. Today we have to review the theology of
the mission of the Church. The Churches of Europe need to consider themselves as
missionary fields without forgetting their own mission of preaching to other continents.4
In any case, the Church cannot but retain its mission of evangelization, although
the term ‘evangelization’ seems out of favor today. Of course we can replace it with
another term, but we cannot discard the essence of the Church’s mission. The objects of
the Church’s mission are both preaching to non-Christians and instructing Christians and
strengthening their faith. Moltmann insists that this mission should be accomplished in
ecumenical co-operation. He does not shy away from critiques of the unilateral call on
the part of Pope John Paul II to do missionary work in Eastern Europe after the fall of
communism. Moltmann suggests that Pope John Paul should have called for an
ecumenical gathering in view of responding to this change in Europe.5 The Church has its
mission of spreading not the Church itself but the kingdom. In this sense, a particular
denominational Church such as the Catholic or Protestant Church should not be pre-
occupied with gathering more members for itself but for the kingdom of God. To
accomplish this goal, the various denominational Churches need to collaborate in the
missionary endeavor.6
1
A great many theologians such as Schillebeeckx, Küng and Pannenberg, etc. also argue along side with
Moltmann that Israel (Judaism) should exist side by side with the Church. On this subject, I will discuss
more in-depth in the section ‘hope for Israel’.
2
J. MOLTMANN, N. WOLTERSTORFF, E. T. CHARRY (M. VOLF, ed.), A Passion for God’s Reign, Grand
Rapids, USA /Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans, 1998, p. 58.
3
4
Cf. ibid., p. 8.
5
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, Christianity in the Third Millennium, 1994, p. 78. See also J. MOLTMANN, Has the
Papacy an Ecumenical Future?, p. 136.
6
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Pentecost and the Theology of Life” in Concilium, 1996/3, p. 123-134, at 130.
114
Another new aspect of this missionary theology is that this mission is not only
assigned to the clergy, but to all Christians. Laymen feel strongly called to involvement
in the Church and the world, and must participate in the Church’s mission. Laymen can
participate in the Church’s mission by going abroad or at home. The Church is catholic
because not only clergymen but also all the laity can participate in the Church’s mission.1
The Church, facing the changing situation in the world today, in fulfilling its mission,
needs to take the following elements into account: a) The Church does not have a
mission, but is rather a missionary Church, b) Ecumenical fellowship is urgent, c) The
kingdom of God has the characteristic of universality, d) Lay apostleship is essential to
the Church.2
The mission of the Church is not limited to proclaiming the Gospel but also
includes the mission of liberation. “If the Church sees itself to be sent in the same
framework as the Father’s sending the Son and the Holy Spirit, then it also sees itself in
the framework of God’s history of the world and discovers its place and function within
this history… It follows from this that the Church understands its world-wide mission in
the Trinitarian history of God’s dealings with the world. With all its activities and
suffering, it is an element in the history of the kingdom of God.”3 The historical Church
cannot be abstract, keeping out of conflict in the world or remaining neutral or above the
conflict. On the contrary, the Catholic Church has to be concrete in action. It has to
involve itself in world affairs in order to help bring peace and unity to the world. “Every
valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill be made low” (Is. 40:4). “God
chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to
shame the strong, and God chose the lowly and despised of the world, those who count
nothing, to reduce to nothing those who are something” (I Cor. 1:27-28). Those biblical
passages reflect what the Church does in the name of its catholicity.4 In fact, the Church
liberates humankind and the world from oppression and injustice while proclaiming the
Gospel. Every good act, especially that act of liberation5, is the act of doing the Church’s
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, Theology of Hope, p.328.
2
3
Ibid., p. 11
4
Cf. ibid., p. 351.
5
The topic of liberation will be more in-depth discussed in Part III: The mission of the Church.
115
mission. In other words, the Church’s mission is not limited to the act of evangelization.
“Evangelization is mission, but mission is not merely evangelization.”1
4. THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH

The Church is apostolic because it fulfils its apostolic mission. One of the
characteristics of the apostolic mark is that it will come to an end when the Church’s
mission is fulfilled on the last day, while the other three marks continue to be with the
Church. The other characteristic of this apostolicity is that it is vital to the other three
marks, for through the apostolic mission the Church continues to retain its identity and
continuity. The three marks: unity, holiness and catholicity “are manifest and assured
from its apostolate.”2 The apostolic mark is of such absolute importance that if the
Church should lose its roots, apostolicity, it would not remain as a Church of unity,
holiness and catholicity. While Christians are proud to claim that the Church today still
retains these four marks, it should be said that it is not the sole effort of the Church or its
members, especially of the successors of the apostles, but by the faithfulness of God and
the continuing guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit that the Church is able to
preserve its marks, as Moltmann says: “The Church is preserved in its identity and
continuity by Christ’s faithfulness to his promises and through the presence of the Holy
Spirit… This perseverance of both God’s faithfulness and our faith can be seen through
signs in the historical fellowship of the Church; but whatever its historical continuity may
be, it is not the historical continuity that secures the continuity of God’s faithfulness.
Even a succession of bishops is no guarantee of the permanent identity of faith, nor of
faithfulness to the apostolic gospel. Historically demonstrable continuity is a gift of
grace.”3
‘Apostolic’ connotes the continuity of the Church from the Apostles, the
eyewitnesses of Christ. In the ecclesiological context, its meaning has a double sense:
first, the Church’s succession can be traced back to the Apostles. Secondly, the
proclamation of the gospel and the doctrine of the Church as well as its practice are
founded on the testimony of the apostles; it regards the content of the proclamation.
1
2
Ibid., p. 357.
3
Ibid., p. 313.
116
Furthermore, it also indicates the Church’s mission of extending the kingdom of Christ,
aimed at the whole world.
4.1. Apostolic succession

‘Apostolic succession’ connotes succession from the Apostles in terms both of the
mission of proclamation and its contents, and the ministry of bishops who inherit this
mission. Here the latter is concerned. Moltmann, in referring to St. Irenaeus,
acknowledges the bond between the Apostles and bishops constitutes the catholicity of
the Church. St. Irenaeus confirms the continuity from the Apostles to the bishops of his
day: “It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the
truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the Apostles manifested throughout the
whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were the Apostles
instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to
our own times.”1
Moltmann argues that the meaning of the expression ‘apostolic’, emphasizing the
legitimation2 of the bishops as successors of the apostles and of their ministry, only dates
from the time of the dispute with the heretics.3 According to J. Moltmann, the Church’s
apostolicity “is not merely a category of legitimation; it is even more a category of
1
IRENAEUS, Adv. Haer. III. III, 1; cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 358. Here, it
is worth noting further texts of St. Irenaeus. St. Irenaeus recounted twelve generations of Popes, tracing
them back to the apostles Peter and Paul and said that “in this order, and by this succession, the
ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us.”
(IRENAEUS. Adv. Haer. III. III, 3). In this sense, St. Irenaeus emphasizes that through the apostolic
succession the truth of the Gospels and revelation is transmitted faithfully to generations to come. Irenaeus
was aware of the heresies of Valentinus and Marcion who claimed to receive the truth from the apostles (cf.
IRENAEUS. Adv. Haer. III. III, 4).
2
Moltmann uses the term ‘legitimation’ which concerns the doctrine which needs to be founded on the
testimony of the first apostles, and bishops who are legitimate because of their charisma and ministry (cf. J.
MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 358)
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, 358. However, I observe that Moltmann does
not specify when this dispute with the heretics took place. It should be from the time of Valentinus and
Marcion, i.e., the second century. Moltmann says that before the time of this conflict with the heretics,
‘apostolicity’ had meant only ‘deriving from the apostles’, ‘relating to the apostles’ and ‘dating from the
apostles’ (cf. The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 358). However, that the meaning of ‘catholicity’ as
‘apostolic succession’ dates back to the second century is very significant. H. B. Swete, an Anglican
theologian, also acknowledges that as early as from the second century onwards many Church Fathers such
as Irenaeus, Cyprian, Hippolytus, Clement of Rome, and Tertullian considered the apostolic succession as
the principle of continuity and essential in preserving the truth in the Church (Cf. H. B. SWETE, The Holy
Catholic Church: The Communion of Saints - A Study in the Apostles’ Creed, p. 19-50. IRENAUES, Adv.
Haer. I. X, 1; III. III, 1- 4; TERTULLIAN, Adv. Marc. IV. 5; CLEMENT OF ROM. I Cor. 42; CYPRIAN, The
Epistles of Cyprian, LXXI. 4).
117
promise and commission. Nor is it enough to affirm the bond with the Apostles merely
through proofs of tradition and succession.1 The apostolic succession is, in fact and truth,
the evangelical succession, the continuing and unadulterated proclamation of the gospel
of the risen Christ.”2 Moltmann says that the risen Lord assigned the apostolic mission to
all Christians (Cf. Mk. 16: 15; Lk. 24: 47-48) and that St. Paul “talked about all the
apostles, and did not only mean the twelve.”3 Moltmann wants to argue that St. Paul was
not a disciple of the earthly Jesus, but he became his apostle whom the risen Lord
appeared to and commissioned to transfer the Good News to the next generations. In this
sense, apostolicity consists of the proclamation of Christ, which is the most important,
while tradition and succession are not absolutely essential to the Church’s apostolicity.
According to Moltmann, the Church should not “idealize the apostolic age,” but needs to
“orientate itself towards the future”4
Apostolic succession is basically the succession in the mission, not of the ministry
as ministers. This is the argument of Moltmann and other Protestants: The apostles were
the eyewitnesses of the historical Jesus and they were sent out to proclaim. Since they
were unique, their act of eye witnessing is unrepeatable; no other people can inherit their
personal experiences. Only their services and missionary charge are transferable.
Therefore, Moltmann argues that the continuing mission and its contents are the subjects
of the apostolicity of the Church.5
4.2. The elements of the apostolic succession

The first element of the apostolic succession is the continuation of the same faith
in God the Apostles had. It is the same faith that holds the Church and Christians today
and in the future related to the first Church of the Apostles. St. Irenaeus attested: “The
1
2
J. MOLTMANNM, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 359.
3
Ibid., p. 358. Moltmann agrees with W. Pannenberg who emphasizes the universal, apostolic mission of
the Church rather than the tradition of apostolic succession: “The apostolic character of the Church does
not depend on its preserving the conditions and modes of thought of the apostolic era in as unaltered a form
as possible, many though the generations of Christians may be who have believed this. Alteration is
unavoidable in the process of history. What is decisive is that the Church clings to and pursues the apostles’
mission to the whole of mankind” (W. PANNENBERG, The Apostles’ Creed, London: SCM Press, 1972, p.
148).
4
J. MOLTMANNM, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 360.
5
With regard to the subject of the Church’s catholicity and Apostolic succession, it is worthwhile to refer
to texts of the Catholic Church, such as Lumen Gentium, n. 18, 20 and JOHN PAUL II, Ut Unum Sint, n. 55.
118
Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has
received from the apostles and their disciples this faith.”1
Moltmann emphasizes the continuity of the content of the proclamation as the
criterion of apostolic succession: “The expression ‘succession’ is intended to preserve the
continuing proclamation and the continuing ministries of the Church in faithfulness to the
apostolic proclamation and the apostolic ministry; so that the message remains Christ’s
message, without falsification, and the ministries are directed towards the kingdom of
God, without deviation.”2 In this sense, faithfulness to the content of the apostolic
proclamation is the decisive factor in true apostolic succession.
According to Moltmann, together with the mission of proclamation, the content of
the proclamation also comprises baptism and the Lord’s Supper. “The sequence of the
Episcopal laying on of hands cannot be the sole condition for recognition of a Church’s
apostolic succession. It may be understood as a visible sign of the fellowship of the
Church in time; but the succession of Church baptism, the fellowship of the Lord’s
Supper and the unbroken proclamation of Christ - the same yesterday today and forever -
are signs too, in at least equal measure… Even a succession of bishops is no guarantee of
the permanent identity of faith, nor of faithfulness to the apostolic gospel.”3
For Protestants, the apostolicity of the Church means that the Church is under the
rule of Jesus Christ in his Word by the Holy Spirit, and the content of the apostolic
proclamation is Holy Scripture. The Church inherits the Holy Scripture as the teaching of
the apostles.4 Moltmann comments: “The Reformers therefore demanded that the
proclamation of Christ be made the criterion of apostolicity. They understood the
1
IRENAEUS, Adv. Haer. I. X, 1.
2
3
Ibid., p. 313. Other Protestant such as Swete also argues that “the Churches founded by St. Paul and his
associates were apostolic foundations, not only because St. Paul was an Apostle, but because his work was
done with the concurrence of the original Apostles.” He relies on Tertullian who noticed that after the time
of the apostles and their immediate disciples Christians founded new Churches in the other regions
unevangelized by the apostles, but the Churches are true Churches because they inherited the teachings of
the apostles (Cf. TERTULLIAN, Praescr. 20, 32; Adv. Marc. IV.5). Swete infers that in modern times many
Christians found Churches, and these Churches, although not formally having apostolic succession, do
participate in apostolicity if they inherit the apostolic foundation (Cf. H. B. SWETE, The Holy Catholic
Church: The Communion of Saints - A Study in the Apostles’ Creed, p. 45)
4
Cf. K. BARTH, Dogmatics in Outline, p.141-148.
119
scriptures as the true apostolos, that is to say as the apostolic testimony to the continuing
apostolic proclamation and the expanding messianic Church.” 1
The apostolic succession and the apostolic mission, therefore, form the two
directions of the Church’s apostolicity. It relates both to the past and the future without
excluding the present. Turning to the past, the Church discerns what is truly its mission
and the contents the apostles had received and wanted to transmit. Turning to the present
and the future, the Church fulfils its mission by proclaiming the true contents of the
Gospels and revelation. This is the point emphasized in the ecclesiology of J. Moltmann:
“In this apostolic movement the Church must continually orient itself towards the future,
the future of Christ which the first Christian apostolate talks about. Where the
retrospective bond with the apostles is concerned, the historical Church will ask about
continuity and strive for continuity. But where the future its apostolate services is
concerned it will be opened to leap forward to what is new and surprising.”2
Trying to be faithful to the mission and its contents, and living in the midst of the
world bring about a dialectical reality. The Church has to live in a tension when it fulfils
its mission and gives witness to its apostolicity. It has to confront the world, which is like
soil needing to be ploughed, and the Church as the laborer has to toil. In this sense,
Moltmann describes the reality of the apostolic Church: “Participation in the apostolic
mission of Christ therefore leads inescapably into tribulation, contradiction and
suffering… So persecution and sufferings will also be the proof of the apostolic
Church… We shall therefore have to understand the apostolate essentially, not merely
fortuitously, as active suffering and as suffering activity. The Church is apostolic when it
takes up its cross. It then witnesses to the glory of the risen Christ in its fellowship with
those who suffer.”3
If Moltmann and some other Protestant theologians hold that the elements of
apostolic succession consist of apostolic faith, the mission of proclamation, Holy
Scripture and worship, but disregard the continuity of the apostolically ordained ministry,
the World Council of Churches (Faith and Order) recognizes that apostolic succession
1
2
Ibid., p.360.
3
Ibid., p. 361.
120
consists of both apostolic content and Episcopal succession.1 In other words, while
Moltmann seems to downplay the element of historical continuity of the ordained
ministry in apostolic succession, the WCC considers it as important and recommends
those Churches that see little importance in orderly transmission to reconsider their
conception of continuity in the apostolic tradition. The WCC considers “Episcopal
succession as a sign, though not a guarantee, of the continuity and unity of the Church.”2
4.3. The apostolic commission

This is an extension of Christ’s commission to the Apostles when he sent them
into the world to proclaim the Good News to all nations. The apostolic Church is the
Church that fulfills its mission in view of the coming of the kingdom of Christ and whose
proclamation and doctrines derive from the Apostles. “The apostolicity of the Church
therefore means the claim to an unbroken, unaltered and unadulterated bond between the
present Church and the apostles in faith and practice, proclamation and office.”3
Jesus commissioned his disciples: “Go into the whole world and proclaim the
gospel to every creature” (Mark 16: 15). St. Mark continues the story: “So then the Lord
Jesus, after he spoke to them, was taken up into heaven and took his seat at the right hand
of God. The disciples went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with
them and confirmed the word through accompanying signs” (Mark 16: 19-20). Not only
the Easter appearances but also the ascension strengthened the faith of the disciples and
helped them improve their understanding of the person of Jesus Christ. They then knew
clearly that Jesus is the Lord and that he is glorified: Jesus “was taken up into heaven and
took his seat at the right hand of God” (Mark 16: 19). With hope in the resurrection and
salvation not only for themselves but also for the whole world, the disciples went out to
preach the Good News to all nations. A new era had begun: the apostolic era. The Church
continues to go into the world to take charge of apostolic work. The apostolic mission of
the Church consists of words, deeds and fellowship. The Church’s apostolic mission will
continue until the return of the Lord, when his kingdom will be fully realized and all
creatures in heaven and on earth will submit to him.
1
Cf. WCC, Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, on Ministry, n. 34-38 (p. 28-30).
2
Ibid., n.38.
3
121
As said above, the nature of the apostolate is oriented in two directions: its
apostolic tradition and its open future. On the one hand, the Church has to attach itself to
its origin, i.e. the risen Christ and the proclamation of the apostles; on the other hand, it
has to let the Spirit guide it into the new environment. Therefore, “it does not have to
maintain its apostolic identity slavishly, through repetition. The important thing is
equivalence, not identity… Where the retrospective bond with the apostles is concerned,
the historical Church will ask about continuity and strive for continuity. But where the
future its apostolate serves is concerned it will be open to leap forward to what is new
and surprising.”1 The Churches of the Apostles, and those of early times, are models for
the Churches of today in terms of their apostolic activities. With the missionary work of
the Church, new communities emerge. It is important to realize that the Church of today
is vastly different from the Church of the Apostles, and that each community, even of the
same era, is unique. Although it is important to maintain its apostolic identity, the older
Churches should not impose their own characteristics on the younger Churches. The
younger Churches will maintain their apostolic identity by fulfilling their apostolic
mission in their own historical situation.
Although the apostles’ role as eyewitnesses is not transferable, their service for
the gospel is passed on to the whole Church and every believer. “The Church does not
already become apostolic simply through remembrance of the first apostles and
faithfulness to their message; it only becomes so when it fulfils its own missionary
charge…It does not only point backwards, but forwards as well.”2
Moltmann says that the contents of the apostolic inheritance are the Gospels and
doctrines, and that continuity in the Church consists of the elements of faith, practice,
proclamation and office3. However, according to him, we need to go beyond the category
of legitimation. All Christians receive a commission through the Apostles and this
commission has three dimensions: knowledge of Christ, mission and hope for the future.4
1
Ibid. p. 360.
2
Ibid. p. 312.
3
Moltmann does not specify the meaning of this ‘office’. In my opinion, if we consider his current
thinking, it would connote the office of proclamation and bearing witness each Christian receives. It is not
about the office of ordained ministers.
4
122
The apostolic mission of the Church according to Moltmann has an eschatological

character. Indeed, the appearances of the risen Lord conveyed knowledge about him to
his disciples and gave them hope that the promise of coming glory will be fulfilled in the
future. The results of these appearances provoked the disciples to proclaim their faith in
Jesus. Therefore, knowledge of Christ through believing in Jesus’ appearance, hope for
seeing him in the future, and mission of proclaiming the good news necessarily relate to
one another.1 The apostolic mission is the nature of the Church, which has faith in Jesus
and eschatological hope. Because we “understand the apostolate in the light of the Easter
appearances, it is not enough to see it in the history of the tradition and to trace the
apostolic Church back to its earthly founder and the apostolic age. Its apostolicity is not
merely a category of legitimation; it is even more a category of promise and
commission.”2 Indeed, if the Church does not fulfill its mission of proclamation, it would
not be the apostolic Church; it would lose its apostolic origin. Moltmann says: “The
Church does not already become apostolic simply through remembrance of the first
apostles and faithfulness to their message; it only becomes so when it fulfils its own
missionary charge. It is only in fulfilling the mission itself that the Church can be called
apostolic.”3
4.4. Apostolicity and papal primacy

As we have seen, although Moltmann does not seem to lend that much importance
to Papal primacy, this fact is very disputable. Therefore, it is worth discussing further.
Can the Church retain its apostolicity without the Pope?
4.4.1. Papal primacy

While papal primacy may have been a subject of argument since the early times
of the Church,4 it probably only became a major disputed matter after the schism between
East and West in 1054, and the other in the West in the sixteenth century, took place.
1
Cf. ibid., p. 359.
2
Ibidem.
3
Ibid., p. 312.
4
Cf. CYPRIAN, The Epistles of Cyprian, LII, 14; LXXIV, 17.
123
Both the Eastern and the Protestant Churches contest certain aspects of the authority and
role of the Pope.1
Is papal primacy one of the key issues in ecumenism? Yes, regarding the
relationship between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church, papal primacy is the key
issue in question. Although there are many obstacles in the ecumenical dialogue between
the Catholic Church and other Churches, the question of papal primacy always comes to
the fore because of the Catholic Church, while the Protestant Churches seem to try to
emphasize other aspects such as the Eucharist and downplay the importance of the issue
of papal primacy: “The primacy of the bishop of Rome came about in history, as also did
the historical form of a partial Church. To see this as an element of the essence of the true
Church is an unprovable assertion, which only serves to remove this form of the unity of
the Church from the discussion.”2
Furthermore, it is not hard to find direct contestation of the Pope’s role, as
Moltmann writes: “The great non-Roman Churches are also prepared for a communio
cum Petro, the Bishop of Rome. But they are not prepared for a communio sub Petro.3
There will be no retrograde ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio) leading to submission to
the universal episcopate of the Pope and his authority in matters of faith and morals.”4
F.C. Senn expands Moltmann’s comment in these words: “The Pope is not, according to
divine law or according to the Word of God, the head of Christendom, but is only the
bishop and pastor of the Church at Rome, and of those who voluntarily [and of their own
accord] or through a human creature (that is a political magistrate) attach themselves to
him, not to be under him as Lord but with him as brethren (colleagues) and associates, as
1
In my opinion, nowadays, scepticism about the supreme power, infallibility and leadership of the pope is
becoming ever more evident and forceful for at least three reasons: firstly, the experience of seeing the
Church’s mistakes under papal leadership; secondly, the number of denominational Churches increased to
hundreds and their voices become louder and more internationally voiced; thirdly, we live in an era of
democracy which upholds decentralization and mass opinion. In fact, the challenge with regard to papal
primacy arises not only in non-Roman Catholic Churches but also within the Roman Catholic Church itself.
In the section dealing with the holiness and sinfulness of the Church, above, we were reminded that one
should not be surprised in witnessing the Church’s sinfulness and that it does not damage its holiness.
2
J. MOLTMANN, “The Church as Communion”, p.137.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Christianity in the Third Millennium”, p. 77.
4
J. MOLTMANN, “Has the Papacy an Ecumenical Future?”, p. 136.
124
Christian; as the ancient Councils and the age of St. Cyprian show.”1 The Charismatic
and Evangelical Churches do not find the absolute necessity of a head of the Church
represented by the Pope and bishops, but rely on the assembly gathered and united under
God the Trinity. For them, the gathering of the community of the people of God
constitutes the Church. They believe that “the charismatic Church does not initially find
its unity in the monarchical episcopate nor in the universal episcopate of the papacy. It
already finds it in the fellowship of the Son with the Father, into which the Holy Spirit
draws the community of Christians too, as John 17: 20f. tells us.”2
4.4.2. Papal infallibility

Moltmann is aware of the controversy concerning the teaching of Papal
infallibility inside and outside the Roman Catholic Church. He argues that in case the
ecumenical dialogue brings Christian unity to fruition, the result will be that the Council
of Churches are the responsible representatives of the whole Church. In this case, the
issue of the infallibility of the Pope becomes the concern of all united Christian
Churches. Moltmann relates the issue of papal infallibility to that of ecumenism: once
there is a unity of Christian Churches, there will be no more doctrine of papal
infallibility. The council of the united Christian Churches will decide all the questions of
dogmas and morals; therefore, papal infallibility will not be needed anymore. In the spirit
of the ecumenical council of all Churches, there will be consultation between Churches;
“the whole Church is present in every individual Church” and all Churches will be
involved in and take up the burden of one another’s problems.3 As a fruit of the
ecumenical efforts of the World Council of Churches as well as of the Catholic Church,
Moltmann foresees a Christian unity which, however, still faces the obstacle of papal
infallibility. Moltmann indicates that Christian unity is not a utopia but a possible reality.
The united Churches can then come together at an ‘ecumenical all-Christian council’.
The ‘convergence document’ of BEM (Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry) which, is the
fruit of the collaboration of the World Council of Churches and the Catholic Church,
1
F. C. SENN, “A Lutheran Reaction to the Papal Encyclical [Ut Unum Sint]” in Ecumenical Trends 25,
1996, p. 14-16, at 16. Cf. J. CHERIAMPANATT, The Catholic Principles of Ecumenism: Towards a New
Theology of Koinonia in Plurality, p. 155.
2
J. MOLTMANN, “The Fellowship of the Holy Spirit - Trinitarian Pneumatology”, p. 294.
3
125
shows that a council of the united Churches can lead the whole Church.1 In my opinion,
Moltmann does not rule out considering the World Council of Churches as a possible
model for the ecumenical council of the united Christian Churches.
Because Moltmann believes that the Church is under the guidance of the Holy
Spirit and each members of the Church receives different gifts from the Holy Spirit in
order to contribute to the Church, he opposes the Church’s hierarchy which dominates the
Church. In this sense Moltmann also opposes the papal infallibility which obliges
Catholics to obey the Pope. He complains: “Pope John Paul II recently imposed the
obligation of ‘obedience to the bishops’ on an assembly of charismatic groups. As the
bishops are obedient to the Pope, who represents the existing Church teaching, the link to
the tradition is clear. Thus the innovative reforms of the life and teaching of the Church
are almost inconceivable: its dogmatic statements are infallible and irreformable.”2
CONCLUDING REMARKS OF PART II, CHAPTER I

If the four marks: unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity are signs of a true
Church, one may ask which Church we find them in. Can we find them in all Churches,
including in the Roman Catholic Church as well as all Reformed Churches? Moltmann
poses this question from another perspective: In which Church is Jesus present? He
implies that wherever we can find Jesus, there is the Church (Ubi Christus, ibi Ecclesia)
and that is the true Church. Indeed, if the Church is “the Church of Christ, then it is
Christ who leads the Church into its truth. In this case the true Church is to be found
where Christ is present.”3 With this way of finding the true Church, we stop relying on
concepts of the Church, but point to the events of Christ’s presence in the Church. Where
is Jesus present? According to the promises of Jesus in the New Testament, he would be
present at the following events: in the fellowship of Christians, in the celebration of the
sacraments, and in the act of apostolate.4 Thus, wherever “the apostolate, baptism, the
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Christianity in the Third Millennium”, p. 77-78.
2
J. MOLTMANN, “The Wealth of Gifts of the Spirit and their Christian Identity”, p.34.
3
4
Cf. ibid., p. 123.
126
Lord’s supper and brotherly fellowship take place in Christ’s presence, there is the
Church.”1
The four marks of the Church relate to and complement one another.2 For
example, if we want to start a discussion beginning with the ‘catholicity’, we can always
relate it to the other three marks. Although the Church is universal it remains particular in
its historical context until the end. Because the Church is universal, it has a catholic
mission. Its proclamation has to appeal to the whole world of all races and all times. In
other words, the Church is catholic in the sense that it is open to the future. Moltmann
says: “Thanks to its hope it cannot surrender any individual person or any part of
creation. ‘Catholic’ is therefore not an adjective describing the Church’s state; it is an
attribute describing its movement, its mission and its hope.”3 In this sense, all separate
Churches are called to reunite themselves into one “Catholic Church”. In the same sense,
the Roman Catholic Church needs to make an effort in order to be reunited with all other
“separated Christian Churches”, and in so doing it apologizes for excommunications
pronounced in the past. Reviewing experiences, the Church also looks forward to the
future, hoping and working for the fulfillment of the universality of the kingdom of God.
Thus, the Catholic Church has an eschatological dimension.
In fact, one can say that the Church is non-universal and non-catholic. According
to Moltmann, the Church’s now being limited in its catholicity is due to two reasons:
firstly, because Israel is not yet included in the new people of God; it still exists parallel
to the Church. Secondly, because ‘every rule and every authority and power’ is not yet
1
Ibid., p. 125. According to K. Barth, because Jesus says “wherever two or three are gathered together in
my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Mt. 18:20), in each gathering of Christians Jesus Christ is
present, and therefore the Church of Christ exists there. In other words, each local Church is the true
Church, for Jesus Christ is present there, and each local Church possesses the four marks of the true
Church: One, Holiness, Catholicity and Apostolicity (Cf. K. BARTH, Dogmatics in Outline, p. 141-148).
2
All four marks are essential to the Church of Christ. Although the true Church has been facing a
diametrically opposed reality: division, sinfulness, particularity and discontinuity, it has to make effort to
improve its life, anchoring itself in its four marks and anticipating the coming kingdom, as Pannenberg
says: “We must assert the unity of the Church so emphatically for the very reason that it is so radically
open to question. We must similarly stress the Church’s apostolicity so strongly for the very reason that we
detect so clearly that the Church has broken away from its apostolic beginnings and is pushing on into an
uncertain future. Again, the Church’s holiness is so important for the very reason that the signs of its
unholiness impress themselves on us so penetratingly. And universality is such an urgent matter for the
Church for the very reason that the Church inclines so strongly toward particularity”(W. PANNENBERG,
Systematic Theology, vol 3, p. 408- 409).
3
127
destroyed (cf. I Cor. 15: 24).1 The Church is catholic only in the eschatological sense; in
anticipation it waits and prepares for the coming of Jesus by actively involving itself in
the world - its mission. In fact, the Church’s mission is implied in all four marks: unity,
holiness, catholicity and apostolicity. In the end, Jesus Christ will summon and unite all
into his kingdom.
CHAPTER II. THE CHURCH OF HOPE

Because the Church anticipates the full realization of the kingdom of God, it “is
always concerned with more than the Church itself. In proclaiming the gospel, in the
fellowship of faith, and in the service of love, it is concerned with the world in the
kingdom of God and with the kingdom of God in the world.”2 By living in the world and
anticipating in the kingdom of God, the Church has to become critically and prophetically
involved in all spheres of society: religion, politics, culture, education, economy and
ecology, etc. If the Church is trying to accomplish its mission in the world at present, it is
because it is impelled by a hope in the future and thus anticipates the coming kingdom of
God.3
The Church of hope is centred in Jesus Christ and at the same time expanding its
horizon to its utmost limits. First of all, it is vital for the Church to return to its roots, i.e.
to go back to the Old Testament as its basic foundation and reaffirm its relationship to
Israel; otherwise, it will lose sight of its orientation.4 It needs to clarify its relationship
with the world’s religions, its role in human society and ecology, and to continue the
mission of Jesus in giving hope to humankind and the world. The Church is the Church
of hope because the Church has hope in Jesus Christ and brings hope to the world, and in
the Church one can find hope.
There may be different kinds of hope. Some argue that by nature man always has
hope. Because man’s condition of life here and now is not perfect, he hopes for a better
situation. Another argument is that man by nature has hope: whatever he is, he always
1
Cf. ibid., p. 350.
2
J. MOLTMANN, N. WOLTERSTORFF, E. T. CHARRY (M. VOLF, ed.), A Passion for God's Reign, p. 51.
3
Although the kingdom of God is already present, its full realization will happen only in the future. In this
sense, the term ‘coming kingdom’ connotes a kingdom in the future, i.e. at the time of parousia. Therefore,
we can say that the Church is anticipating the ‘coming kingdom’, which was already inaugurated by Jesus
and is present now in an incomplete form.
4
128
desires a better life.1 Although the existence of human hope may remain arguable, it is
incontrovertible that there exists a Christian hope. The subject of Christian hope has been
treated throughout the history of Christianity and theology. However, Moltmann’s
theology of hope is particular because he deals with Christian hope from a biblical
perspective. It is not merely a Christian hope, nor anthropological or philosophical hope,
but rather a ‘biblical hope’.
1. THE SUBJECT OF CHRISTIAN HOPE2

Together with faith and charity, Christian hope is a theological virtue because it is
directly concerned with man’s relationship to God. Jesus comes not only to reveal God
but also to share his life with mankind. Through his teachings and examples, he guides
men so that they may live a life of love, justice and peace. With his death on the cross, he
shares his life with humanity and shows them that he loves them even to the point of his
death on the cross. With his resurrection from the dead, he gives all men and women
hope: hope in righteousness, in a new life of being with God, and in the resurrection. The
objects of Christian hope have their fulfillment in the future. The question is how men
and women can achieve these goals. Whether they just idly await them or actively
prepare their happening. In the history of the Church, Christians and the Church have
exhibited both tendencies: either emphasizing relying exclusively on the mercy of God
and doubting man’s ability, or the other way around, relying too much on their own
ability and effort, disregarding God’s help. Both modern theology and Vatican Council II
encourage mankind and the Church to act in order to obtain the objects of hope, without
refusing God’s grace. The Church now considers the objects of Christian hope as real
both here and in another world. Therefore, it is involved in the world and helps improve
1
Some authors consider hope as part of human nature. Man, by nature, always hopes for and desires
perfection and happiness. Man has partially achieved what he expected; however, he still aspires for
something better, and his desire is never completely satisfied. Thus, man hopes for fulfilment in the future
and tries to find means to obtain the objects of his hope. “Hence hope remains a permanent companion of
temporal life. Hope for a better future is ineradicably grounded in the limitation of man’s finiteness and his
longing for perfect goodness and completion” (K. H. PESCHKE, Christian Ethics, vol. II, Bangalore:
Theological Publications, 1987, p. 51).
2
By ‘subject of hope’ it means the themes of discussion, while the ‘object of hope’ means the goal to be
obtained.
129
the life of both mankind and the world, realizing that the kingdom of God is already here.
In the Church one can find hope, for it brings hope to the world.1
We will find out what Moltmann says about hope. How does he differentiate
himself from other authors who also treat the subject of hope? What are the implications
that Moltmann wants to bring from his theology of hope into the Church of hope?
1.1. The philosophy and theology of hope in parallel

J. Moltman attended Ernst Bloch’s public conference in 1951 at Wuppertal, a
town north of Düsseldorf and Köln, and became impressed in his philosophy of hope.
Thus, Moltmann began to read the Prinzip Hoffnung by Bloch and discovered hope as the
principle of Christian faith. His theology thence became a theology of hope. Moltmann
himself admitted that he was influenced by Bloch’s philosophy of hope.2
The philosophical principle in Bloch’s Prinzip Hoffnung is that man and nature
are the ‘not-yet of being’. If Marx’s thesis is that man is an alienated being for
economical reasons, for Bloch man is alienated because he has not accomplished his true
being. Man’s possibility of fulfilling his being takes place in nature and history. Nature is
not a static reality but is open to new possibilities man is related to. Man too is impelled
to realize now or in the near future something that will set him anew in another context of
hope. Thus he continues to hope in ‘utopical’ reality.3 In other words, Bloch considers
man as a being always on his journey, striving for what he desires for himself but never
(or not yet) achieves. He always lacks something and lives with multiple drives, desires
and hopes, which push him to innovate daily to acquire what he yearns for: “Longing
now shows what it can really do. Men have always been expected to cut their coat
according to their cloth, they learn to do so, but their wishes and dreams did not comply.
Here almost all men are future, rise above the life that has been granted them. Insofar as
they are discontented, they consider themselves worthy of a better life.”4 Bloch sees “the
1
It is true that the Church brings hope to the world and one can find hope in the Church. This is not an
ideal, but a reality, if we consider that sometimes hope is not evidently manifested and one often needs
patience in hoping.
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Stations et signaux. Coup d’œil rétrospectif sur mon cheminement personnel” in
Études théologiques et religieuses 46, 1971/4, p. 357-363.
3
Cf. B. MONDIN, “Theology of Hope and the Christian Message”, in Biblical Theology Bulletin 1-2, 1971-
1972, p. 43-63, at 44-45. For Bloch, therefore, “utopia” is the source, foundation and impetus in the life of
man, who necessarily has hope.
4
E. BLOCH, The Principle of Hope, vol. 3, p. 1365.
130
world as an unfinished process, he systematically rejects any concepts which ties the
world down to what it already is and joins instead in the world’s journey towards its truth
which has not yet come into being… a world which can therefore be shaped by human
activity.”1 Man aspires to his drives, desires and hopes which only a future world can
offer. A world of the future in which man can find what he wants, needs man to set his
goals and identify his possibilities. In this perspective, Bloch proposes a radically
evolutionary approach to the world, whereby it may achieve its goal of utopia, which
permanently pulls the world towards the future. In this sense, Bauckham describes the
philosophy of Bloch: “The aim of Bloch’s philosophy is not a merely theoretical
interpretation of the world as is, but a “theory-praxis” which sets goals and identifies the
possibilities for Marxist revolutionary activity to change the world, and therefore helps
open the world up to a successful outcome. It conceives the world as open to the
achievement of utopia and itself aims at utopia.”2
Religion is considered as positive. It has a triple role in relationship to man. It is
an expression of alienation, that is the incomplete state of man; it is a protest against the
incomplete, temporal and fragmentary present state of man; and it is a place where man
projects his ‘not-yet’ and coming nature. Bloch’s positive approaches to the nature of
man and religion drew attraction from the ‘theology of hope’ movement, which consisted
mainly of German theologians, such as J. Moltmann, W. Pannenberg, J. B. Metz, etc.
who made used of Bloch’s philosophical categories in their efforts at offering a new
hermeneutical principle to Christians, who are always on their journey towards their
future destination. Thus Moltmann’s theology of hope was born.3
In line with Bloch’s philosophy of hope, we can see an independent development
of the theology of hope in Moltmann, who rediscovers the importance of that oft
forgotten eschatology which should be the center of faith and Christian theology; for
eschatology is the future of man and thus the principle of man’s hope.4 Man is
1
R. J. BAUCKHAM, Moltmann Messianic Theology in the Making, Basingstoke: Marshall Pickering, 1987,
p. 9.
2
Ibidem.
3
According to B. Mondin, other international theologians such as E. Schillebeeckx, H. Cox, K. Braaten and
R. Alves also contributed greatly to the movement of the theology of Hope. Cf. B. MONDIN, “Theology of
Hope and the Christian Message”, p. 44-46.
4
As Christian tradition shows, up to the second half of the twentieth century (the time of Moltmann and K.
Rahner), eschatology had been treated as the appendix of theology. Furthermore, eschatology was
131
permanently becoming and thus influenced, formed and determined by his future. If
Bloch’s philosophy of hope is anchored in the not-yet fulfillment of man, which is
uncertain, the theology of hope of Moltmann is also fastened in the not-yet future which
however will be accomplished, certain, decisive and guaranteed by the promise of God.
The biblical promises of God, particularly in the Old Testament are accomplished in the
events of the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus. These events however, are not the
final happenings of the history of Jesus himself, nor of humanity, but rather a beginning
and protocol of what will be the future history of God’s involvement in the history of
mankind. Therefore, man’s hope for a better future already has its positive answer,
though it has not yet taken place.1 Moltmann writes: “Eschatology means the doctrine of
the Christian hope, which embraces both the object hoped for and also the hope inspired
by it. From first to last, and not merely in the epilogue, Christianity is eschatology, is
hope, forward looking and forward moving, and therefore also revolutionizing and
transforming the present.”2 The future of man must go hand in hand with the future of the
world, for man already lives his future at present, or rather anticipates his future in his
present life, and the world both of present and future also belongs to the Kingdom of God
man partakes in. According to both Bloch and Moltmann, man needs to transform the
world with a revolutionizing approach.
A parallel study of Bloch’s philosophy of hope and Moltmann’s theology of hope
can point out the following elements: 1) A dialectical reality in man, i.e., his present and
his future. Man is not happy with his present and hence hopes for a better life in the
future. 2) Both man and the world, in which man lives, are open to a better future. Man
and the world are becoming what they truly are. 3) In order to achieve this better future,
man is driven to act now, in the present. Man has to activate his “creative expectation”
because he anticipates his future. 4) The method of transforming the world is its radical
considered as a subject related to the last events of human life, which are determined by man’s earthly life:
death, judgment, resurrection, general judgment, heaven, purgatory, and hell. With the philosophy of hope
and the theology of hope, not the past or present influences the future, but the future influences the present.
Man’s present life is pulled into the future. In this sense, Bloch’s philosophy of hope has an important
influence on Moltmann’s theology of hope. For a further study of Rahner’s eschatology, see, P. C. PHAN,
Eternity in Time, Selingsgrove: Susquehanna University Press / London and Toronto: Associated
University Presses, 1988.
1
Cf. H. GOUDINEAU, J.-L. SOULETIE, Jürgen Moltmann, Paris : Cerf, 2002, p. 21-22.
2
132
change through revolutionary praxis by Marxist revolution according to Bloch and by the
Christian mission according to Moltmann. 5) Both authors, Bloch and Moltmann, locate
the final novum (the eschatological utopia) in this temporary world.
There are, however, a few differences between the two authors. First of all,
regarding the foundation of hope, Moltmann anchors his hope both in the promises of
God in the Old Testament and in the events of Jesus, namely his cross and resurrection,
which at the same time enthuses and guarantees man’s hope and activities. According to
Moltmann, the final goal of hope is the eschatological reality. Yet he locates it at the end
of this temporal future instead of in another world. In this connection, Marxists attacked
Christian eschatology, complaining that it offers Christians imaginary consolation in
being content with the stagnation of this world, since they cannot help but achieve their
goal in another. Although human effort is necessary and real in the activity of changing
the world, and the novum ultimum will be achieved at the end of this temporal world,
only God can bring about this final goal, which is already guaranteed by God’s promises
and heralded by the events of Jesus’ life.1 Bloch, on the contrary, being an atheistic
philosopher, bases his philosophy of hope only on human dreams and achievement. For
him, “each intermediate novum in history is a real step on the way to the novum
ultimum.”2 In other words, for Bloch, man does not have to wait until the last period of
the temporal world in order to harvest his revolutionary labour, but can achieve it now
while he is still alive. In this sense, Bloch’s hope would urge man to foment a revolution
as soon and fast as possible.
The other difference between the two authors concerns the victory over death,
which belongs to the object of hope. For Moltmann, the ultimate goal of hope is the
resurrection. Death cannot defeat those who believe in Jesus raised by God. On the
contrary, Bloch knows that the object of his hope consists only of the temporal goodness.
He knows that the greatest challenge in this world is death, but his hope does not have the
ambition of conquering it.3 Hope in Moltmann’s theology offers life even to those who
1
R. J. BAUCKHAM, Moltmann Messianic Theology in the Making, p. 13-14.
2
Ibid., p. 13.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Crucified God, p. 179. On The Crucified God, p. 203 Moltmann cites what Bloch
says in Das Prinzip Hoffnung (ed. 1959) on p. 1324: “The breakthrough of immortality first came about in
Judaism through the prophet Daniel… and the drive towards it did not come from the old wish for a long
133
cannot contribute to the transformation of the world; God restores life to the dying and
sinners. On the contrary, hope in the philosophy of Bloch is “available only to those who
are active in the vanguard of progress towards a better future.”1
The philosophy of hope, which also has as its object positive change in the world,
has certainly influenced the theology of hope. However, if the philosophy of hope
considers only temporal goals in time as the object of hope, the theology of hope uses
these temporal goals as an aid in obtaining the ultimate object of hope, which is
resurrection, salvation, and Divine happiness. J. Moltmann advocates an active and
practical involvement in changing the world with a view to the future. For him, hope
embraces both this worldly goods and other-worldly. He also says that hope has both an
individual and social-communal dimension.2 Moltmann is particularly to be noted for
including ecology in the object of hope.3 In conclusion, Moltmann approves only the
biblical hope which is different from anthropological or philosophical hope. Christian
hope has gone through an evolution in terms of its interpretation; it needs to be correctly
interpreted according to biblical revelation. Christian hope should be biblical hope.
1.2. The theology of hope

Throughout the history of the Church: from St. Paul to the Fathers of the Church,
from St. Augustine and St. Thomas to modern theologians, we see that the subject of
Christian hope has been treated more or less systematically. However, from the second
half of the twentieth century, people have talked about a specific theology of hope, which
is Moltmann’s.
1.2.1. The context of the development of the theology of hope

If hope is a theme of theology, we may say generally that the theology of hope
existed even in the Old Testament, or from the beginning of the New Testament. Today,
when talking about the theology of hope we may mean, in contemporary designation, a
life, for wellbeing on earth, now extended into the transcendent. It came, rather, from Job and the prophets,
from the thirst after righteousness”.
1
R. J. BAUCKHAM, Moltmann Messianic Theology in the Making, p. 19. Cf. J. MOLTMANN, Theology of
Hope, 31-32, 91.
2
Other authors, such as Pannenberg, Metz, Teilhard de Chardin, and Rahner also says that hope embraces
both other-worldly and this worldly goods. They also agree that hope has both an individual and social-
communal dimension.
3
Cf. M. K. HELLWIG, “Hope” in M. DOWNEY (ed.), The New Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality,
Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1993, p. 506-515.
134
particular theology of hope born in the sixties. Hope here is not one of many discussed
subjects in theology, but the stimulus, origin and foundation of theology; many other
themes center on the theme of hope. More precisely, the theology of hope began to take
shape in the beginning of the sixties, following the crisis of the Second World War and
the holocaust, which some considered an historical occasion for reaction. For Moltmann,
these two events had political origins. In any case, Moltmann says: “any hermeneutic of
Christian hope is governed by the political context, the historical kairos and the human
community in which we ask about the future and about hope.”1
Having gone through the experiences of war and holocaust, Europeans seemed to
be trying to find some explanations of what had happened to them as well as of what their
future would be. They had to confront a present reality which challenged them to
investigate into the past and project towards the future. On the one hand, they
experienced suffering either through imposing it on others or receiving it from them.
What could they do about what had happened? On the other hand, they looked forward to
the future. They started to rebuild Europe and could see another horizon illumined. But
what had happened to human beings in wars or prison camps as well as in the holocaust
seemed to be hard to repair. Hope is the answer for all. Theologians wanted to offer their
fellowmen some help. Being drawn into the past and at the same time being projected
into the future, they placed hope in the present. The theology of hope was born in this
context. Hope was present now and it was consolation for the past and a solution and
guidance for the future.
In the Moltmann’s case, he went though war and prison camp,2 which sharpened
his consciousness of suffering and led him to pose two questions with regard to biblical
eschatology, which was being rediscovered in Europe and liberation theology, which was
flourishing in Latin America. For Moltmann, Christian eschatology should merit its own
independent position in theology, instead of being reduced “into existential theology by
Rudolf Bultmann or into transcendent subjectivity by Karl Barth.”3 In other words, his
personal suffering and memories of war and prison awakened his awareness of the
1
J. MOLTMANN, “Resurrection: The Ground, Power and Goal of our Hope”, p. 81.
2
Moltmann was born in 1926 and drafted into the army in 1944. He was captured by the British forces in
Belgium and imprisoned in Scotland, then retained in war camp in England for three years.
3
J. B. METZ and J. MOLTMANN, Faith and the Future, (Concilium Series), Maryknoll, New York: Orbis
Books, 1995, p. XII.
135
question of eschatology; the influence of liberation theology inspired him to try and find
a solution to the crisis of the apolitical Church in Europe and non-public Christian faith.
These are among the essential issues treated by Moltmann’s theology of hope.1
Moltmann “calls for an eschatology with a veritable world horizon, a ‘creative’
eschatology which binds faith not to some ‘eternal present’ but rather to an all-out
commitment to actually transform the face of the world by the present power of the
coming kingdom of God.”2
There is another aspect that constituted the birth of the theology of hope. This
aspect is purely positive and optimistic. In the sixties, men looked not only at the
situation in Europe but also had a whole world vision. Witnessing progress in technology
and economy, spatial conquest and a better standard of living, man became more
optimistic. Thus, hope and optimism came to the fore in human life.3
1.2.2. Hope in Scripture

Hope in classical Greek is hope in an impersonal God who is ‘eternally present’
Being according to Parmenides, the highest Idea according to Plato or the ‘Unmoved
Mover’ according to Aristotle.4 On the contrary, Christian hope is hope in a personal God
who gets involved in the history of mankind. He revealed himself by having a personal
relationship with Israel through the events of covenants and Jesus Christ. Christian hope,
therefore, is based on recalling past history and anticipating a future which God has
promised to bring about.5
In this sense, God and his promise are the foundation of Christian hope: “The real
language of Christian eschatology, however, is not the Greek logos, but the promise
1
Cf. J. B. METZ and J. MOLTMANN, Faith and the Future, p. XI-XIII.
2
R. G. WILBURN, “Some Questions on Moltmann’s Theology of Hope” in Religion in Life 38, 1969, p.
578-595, at 586.
3
Cf. B. MONDIN, “Theology of hope and the Christian message”, p. 43; J. MOLTMANN, “Resurrection: The
Ground, Power and Goal of our Hope”, p. 81.
4
5
K. Barth says that hope in classical Greek denotes the optimistic or pessimistic expectation of man. Man’s
hope aims at his future, which is dubious; it can be good or bad, which is partly up to man’s projected
contribution. Since his future is ambivalent and undecided, there is always room for caution. In other
words, hope is an open expectation of the future, which can be either positive or negative. In this sense,
hope in classical Greek is different from that of Scripture, which aims only at a positive future (cf. K.
BARTH, Church Dogmatics, the Doctrine of Reconciliation, IV.3.2, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1962, p. 908,
trans. from the German Die Kirchliche Dogmatik IV: Die Lehre von der Versöhnung 3, Zweite Hälfte,
Zollikon-Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1959).
136
which has stamped the language, the hope and the experience of Israel.”1 Christian hope
has always been one of the major topics of theology because, from the time of creation
and particularly in the Old Testament, God has promised his continuing blessing upon his
creatures and his chosen people. God loves not only Israel but also all peoples on earth
and offers them salvation. Moltmann, in his book ‘Theology of Hope’, in referring to the
promises and faithfulness of God to Israel, cites the Old Testament ubiquitously. Then
referring extensively to Pauline passages but the gospel only once (Mk. 13: 10) and other
New Testament passages, he tries to illuminate the universal dimension in hope.2
1.2.2.1. Christian hope and the Old Testament

Unlike Bloch’s philosophy of hope, which excludes ‘Transcendence’3, the hope
that Moltmann wants to explore is the Christian hope in the God of Israel, “a God with
future as his essential nature”, who “made known in Exodus and in Israelite prophecy.4
Christian hope involves man in reviewing the history of Israel, who “is appointed ‘for a
witness to the peoples’”(Isa. 55:4).5 The history of Israel tells stories of God’s
involvement in the history of the world in the forms of promises and faithfulness. In
every event in the history of Israel, people were reminded that every particular event
shows God’s faithfulness to his promises in the past. Moltmann says: “In the Old
Testament practice of referring back new revelations of God to things already known (cf.
Ex.3), it is not a case of arguing back from effect to cause or from that act to the doer, but
it is a question of recognizing again that God is the same God all the way from promise to
fulfillment: ‘Ye shall know that I, Yahweh, have spoken it, and performed it’” (Ezek.
37:14).6 Therefore, hope and the revelation of God are strictly related because the people
of Israel believed not in an impersonal God, but in the God of their patriarchs, who
revealed himself in Israelite history. Hope and revelation are found in the history of
Israel.
The People of Israel hoped for a better life and for fulfillment promised by God.
Indeed, the motive of their hope is God’s promise. God, in his generosity took the
1
2
Cf. Ibid., p. 194.
3
Cf. E. BLOCH, The Principle of Hope, vol. 1, p. 210.
4
5
Ibid., p. 115.
6
Ibidem.
137
initiative in promising Abraham, the Patriarch of the people of God: “I will make of you
a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, so that you will be a
blessing… All the land that you see I will give to you and your descendants forever. I
will make your descendants like dust of the earth” (Gen. 12: 2; 13: 15-16). For Israelites,
the God of their forefather, Abraham, continued to be their God. This first great event of
Abraham and other events such as the exodus, exile, conquest and retribution, etc., when
retold, sustain the following generations in the same promise of God. God is the God of
promise, of hope, of exodus. The past of their history is a promise in the future.1 Israel
recalled its history in order to praise God, to strengthen its faith and to renew its hope in
God, who will continue to walk with it in the future: “Yahweh’s faithfulness in the past is
recalled and recounted to the ‘children of the future’ (Ps. 78:6), in order that the ‘people
which shall be created’ may praise Yahweh and recognize his lordship for their own
present and future (Ps. 71:18; 102: 18). Thus it is in order to make confidence in
Yahweh’s faithfulness in the future that the historic experiences of former times are
recounted”.2
For Moltmann, the Old Testament plays an important role in Christian hope
because without it Christians can know neither God’s promises nor his fulfillment of
promises. It contains not only the history of God, but also the history of Israel who
witnesses what God revealed to her. Therefore, so important is the role of Israel in the
Old Testament that there would be no Christian hope without Israel. “The promise that
was given is remembered where the faithfulness of Yahweh is revealed in the event. So
also the future kabod Yahweh, which will reveal the divinity of God to all peoples, is no
event without a witness [of Israel]”.3
Moltmann says that the expectation of “the resurrection of the dead is found in its
Israelite form neither in an anthropological context - as a hope for man beyond death- nor
in a cosmological context - in recognition of immortal substances in which man
participate - but in a theological context.”4 For Christians, resurrection is the object of
hope because they know that God has made them promises and that they believe in Jesus
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “La religion de l’espérance” in Études Théologiques et Religieuses 46, 1971, p. 385-
398, at 388, trans. from the German by L. Rimbault and H. Schoenbals.
2
3
Ibid., p. 115.
4
Ibid., p. 208.
138
Christ who is raised by the same God. Christian hope in the resurrection, which only God
can fulfill, introduces a different element from secular and human hope, in which,
according to Bloch, God is not needed. Indeed, death is the absolute negative that Bloch’s
hope cannot surpass, but Moltmann’s hope can, because it is Christian hope in the God of
Israel who has promised the resurrection.1 “Thus according to Ezek. 37:11 the people of
the promise can even now recognize itself only in the picture of dead bone, i.e. of hope
that has come to nothing, and is then given to hear the prophetic message of a new
promise of life by Yahweh: ‘Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall
live’ (Ezek. 37:5).”2
Israel has shown how man should expect in God: Trusting that God, as a leader,
knows what he has to do to man: Israel expected that in the kingdom God will reveal
himself as Lord (cf. Judg. 8:23), who “goes before his people, that he rules them by
leading them as a shepherd, issuing commands, giving council and announcing his will
for the future.”3 Man needs to have patience in waiting for God’s fulfillment of his
promises. God knows how and when to fulfill the promises man hopes to experience.
According to Moltmann, Christian hope leads man to envision a better future. A better
future, not fixed by past events, but with a tendency, a trend, a movement, whose final
form man can take part in deciding. The man of Christian hope cannot but allow himself
to fulfill the vocation assigned him by God.
In the light of Ex. 3:11, Isaiah 6:5 and Jer. 1:6, man, being called by God to fulfill
a mission, poses a question of who he is. But God tells him who he (man) will be. “Self-
knowledge here comes about in face of the mission and call of God, which demand
impossibilities of man… This does not tell man what he was and what he really is, but
what he will be and can be in that history and that future to which the mission leads him.
In his call man is given the prospect of a new ability to be… In the very history of
missionary possibilities which are as yet unknown and as yet unlimited, it comes to light
that man is not ‘established being’, that he is open to future, open to new, promised
1
Cf. R. BAUCKHAM, “Moltmann’s Theology of Hope Revisited” in Scot. Jour. of Theol. 42, 1989, p. 199-
214, at 213.
2
3
Ibid., p. 216.
139
possibilities of being”1 With Christian hope, man is open to a new life for himself and the
world. In this sense, man cannot rest idle, but becomes active in resisting whatsoever
negatives of life.2
In the Old Testament, man’s hope is an expectation in the God of Israel who
provides guidance, protection, help and blessing to him and the people of Israel. He has
hope in God as his savior. Because he is a member of the people of God, God will grant
him what he has promised his people.
1.2.2.2. Christian hope and the New Testament

The God of the promises of the Old Testament is the same God in the New
Testament. God’s promises to Israel are still valid; however, through the event of Jesus,
they are explicitly extended to all people: “Thus the gospel is not to be understood as
antiquating the promises of Israel or even putting an end to them. In the ultimate,
eschatological sense of the promises it is in fact identical with them.”3 In the New
Testament, new people can become the children of Abraham in faith if they believe in
Jesus Christ: “The true heirs of the promise and children of Abraham are therefore those
who are partakers of the promise in faith in Christ (Gal. 3:29). For by the gospel the
Gentiles become partakers of the promise in Christ (Eph. 3:6).”4
Therefore, hope in the New Testament is the continuation of that in the Old
Testament; it is anchored in a new divine event, namely the event of the history of Jesus.
In the Old Testament God was known as the God of the exodus and the promises, but in
the New Testament God became known as the God of all mankind in the acts and being
of Jesus Christ with his earthly history, his death and resurrection as well as his future,
when he will come to show himself and man will see him face to face. In other words,
there is continuity and new aspects regarding the transition from hope as found in the Old
Testament to that of the New Testament: a) With regard to the God of promises, man
hopes in the same God of the New and Old Testament. However, in the New Testament
“what was promised to Israel is now valid for all believers, both Jews and Gentiles.”5
1
Ibid., p. 285 and 286.
2
Cf. R. BAUCKHAM, “Moltmann’s Theology of Hope Revisited”, p. 214.
3
4
Ibid., p. 146.
5
Ibid., p. 147.
140
b) In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is the origin, center and goal of hope. Man hopes
in Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ causes man to have hope. A man who has hope looks
forwards to seeing Jesus Christ as who He is in his future. However, this does not mean
that the God of the Old Testament becomes obsolete in the New Testament. On the
contrary, in the New Testament, Christians still recall the God of hope (Rom. 15: 13) who
promised in the Old Testament and fulfilled these promises in Jesus. In the New
Testament, Jesus is a new hope for mankind; “He is our hope” (Col. 1: 27).1
Moltmann’s book Theology of Hope draws extensively from St. Paul’s Epistles
and occasionally from the Letter to the Hebrews and other New Testament passages.2 It is
surprised that he does not quote more the gospels.3 Exceptionally, in his article
Resurrection as Hope, Moltmann cites a teaching of Jesus according to the gospel of St.
Mark: “He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find
it”(Mk. 8:35) in order to illustrate that hope for something in the future makes man
sacrifice something now. In fact, this is the meaning of anticipation. If man has hope in
the resurrection, he has to die now to his own life. “He will find himself again in the
kingdom of God, if he risks his life for the coming of this kingdom, and if he takes his
cross upon himself, as the Word of God would have him to do. The resurrection hope
readies one for a life in love without reservation.”4
As we just said above, in the New Testament, Jesus Christ is our hope. Moltmann,
in his book Theology of Hope focuses in on subjects related to Jesus Christ. What man
hopes for in the New Testament already exists in virtue of the “first event”, in the person
of Jesus Christ. “If the Christ event thus contains the validation of the promise, then this
means no less than that through the faithfulness and truth of God the promise is made true
1
Cf. Ibid., p. 16-17, 141, 143, 194; K. BARTH, Church Dogmatics, the Doctrine of Reconciliation, IV.3.2,
p.1962, p. 908-909.
2
Since there a strict relation between biblical hope and biblical eschatology, it should be taken into account
that, according to R. G. Wilburn, Moltmann’s biblical eschatology consists in an overarching perspective
based on New Testament writing: 1) the apocalyptic and existential eschatology of Paul, 2) the radical
contemporising eschatology of John, 3) the futuristic eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and 4) the
greater historical realism eschatology of Luke-Acts. Wilburn also says that Moltmann’s thought “hardly
achieves the fascinating balance of the existential present and the apocalyptic future which Paul achieved,
but represents a sort of combination of the eschatologies of Luke-Acts and the Epistles to the Hebrews”
(Cf. R. G. WILBURN, “Some Questions on Moltmann’s Theology of Hope”, p. 586-587).
3
I presume that many sayings of Jesus contain messages of promises, which are relevant to Christian hope;
Mt. 11: 28-30 and Mt. 5: 3-12, etc. are among them. In this sense, if hope in the New Testament is centred
on Jesus, Christian hope should involve more in-depth discussions of the messages of Jesus.
4
J. MOLTMANN, “Resurrection as Hope” in Harvard Theological Review 61, 1968, p. 129-147, at 143.
141
in Christ - and made true wholly, unbreakably, for ever and for all. Nothing more stands
in the ways of its fulfillment, for sins are forgiven in him (Heb. 1:15)”.1 The resurrection
of Jesus is essential to man’s faith and hope in him. In fact, if he is not raised from the
dead, our faith is in vain (cf. I Cor. 15: 17). The resurrection of Jesus gives credibility to
Him and to God. With regard to Jesus, He is not determined by his death, but also has a
future because He is now alive. His credibility also involves all that he said and did in his
earthly life. With regard to God the Father, Jesus’ resurrection becomes a promise of God
to mankind: If He raised Jesus from the dead, he will also raise all who have hope in his
promise. Furthermore, Christians hope not only in Jesus and in God, but particularly hope
for their own resurrection. Indeed, if Christian hope is hope in the risen Lord and hope in
one’s own resurrection, then hope defies death because resurrection opposes death.
Hoping in the resurrection, man understands that God contradicts the suffering and death
of man. If death is the last enemy of man (I Cor. 15: 26), resurrection is the final object of
Christian hope.2
Furthermore, hope in the New Testament points to the adventus of Jesus and
futurum of man. It requires patience because man will not see what he hopes for until He
shows up. ‘“We are saved by hope. But hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for
what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, then we wait for it with endurance’
(Rom. 8: 24-25). Everywhere in the New Testament Christian hope is directed towards
what is not yet visible.3 Moltmann emphasizes the future aspect of Jesus, which is
highlighted by his parousia.
However, hope does not only entail waiting for something to happen but also
requires decision-making that involves rejection or acceptance and responsibility,
because hope in the New Testament is a hope in someone, namely in the resurrected
Jesus Christ and his future coming. In this sense, a person who has hope in Jesus Christ
needs to commit himself to the project of Jesus, i.e., to live actively in his kingdom, for
the future which is the object of his hope has already started to take place. “ Our hope in
the promises of God, however, is not hope in God himself or in God as such, but it hopes
that his future faithfulness will bring it also the fullness of what has been promises… Yet
1
2
Cf. Ibid., p. 21.
3
Ibid., p. 18
142
it would surely be an abstraction which would not do justice to the Old Testament hope,
if we were to describe this hope as spes purissima in Deum purissimum. Hope, where it
holds to the promises, hopes that the coming of God will bring it also ‘this and that’ -
namely, his redeeming and restoring lordship in all things. It does not merely hope
personally ‘in him’, but has also substantial hopes in his lordship, his peace and his
righteousness on earth.”1
1.2.3. Biblical hope

From the anthropological point of view, we may agree that man often desires
something, and while waiting for that something to happen, hopes for its occurrence. This
hope is not based on God or Jesus, but on human instinct. For Christians, hope is hope in
God who will grant them what they desire. In the early centuries, although hope was a
Christian virtue, not yet developed into a systematic theology, it was sometimes
discussed theologically. We are talking about hope, but what is hope? Moltmann says:
“Hope’s statements of promise, however, must stand in contradiction to the reality which
can at present be experienced. They do not result from experiences, but are the condition
for the possibility of new experiences.”2 This statement is correct for human hope,
Christian hope and biblical hope. I will try to clarify the differences between these three
types of hope. By Christian hope, I mean the hope of Christians who have hope in God;
by biblical hope I mean hope according to Moltmann; by human hope I mean hope of all
human beings without referring to the God of Scripture.
1.2.3.1. Human hope

Moltmann, referring to a saying of Ernst Bloch: “where there is hope, there is a
religion; however, where [there] is a religion, there is not always hope”, refutes those
who consider hope ‘religious nostalgia’ or “religious illusion’. For some people, being
under the ‘religious illusion’ of hope, man loses his liberty and affirmation of his own
power, which would motivate him to get involved in daily life in view of a better earthly
life. Taken in this sense, religious hope is negative for Feuerbach, Marx and Sigmund
Freud: wherever there is religion, there is no future, no hope.3 Another misinterpretation
1
Ibid., p. 119.
2
Ibid., p. 18.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “La religion de l’espérance”, p. 385.
143
of hope was presented by Stoical Greek philosophy and that of Mircea Eliade, who
consider hope to be a form of reaction to man’s suffering and fear.1 Hope is neither a
sentiment of affection which accompanies fear as Spinoza supposed, nor an opium which
helps man elude suffering in life, as Freud concluded. Opposing these authors and
philosophies, Moltmann wants to bring to light a religious hope that does not take his
liberty away from man, but renders him richer and allows him to envisage a future of new
horizons. There is a Christian hope2 which is not afraid of confronting suffering, but
accepts history and orients itself towards the future. Therefore, Christian hope takes the
God of Israel as the God of the future.3
In line with the anthropological perspective,4 Moltmann also identifies a positive
hope in human beings, which of course is different from Christian hope and Moltmann’s
biblical hope. This is ontological hope, which is an element of human nature. Man is not
a being already defined, but is always in search of his real being. This is a definition of
human being from the ontological viewpoint, but from the historical perspective, we can
say that man is an experience. Because, experience is ongoing, man is open to the future,
to new possibilities. In this sense, we cannot say that ‘to hope’ means ‘to have
experiences’, but rather means ‘to be open to experience’. Moltmann says: “To be in
hope means to find oneself in a state of availability, not being determined by the past, not
by the nostalgic dreams, and to give his assent to experience which one is for himself. In
this sense, hope is not something that one has but another person does not have, but it is a
fundamental disposition, the most important constitutive element in human life.”5
Because man, being hopeful, is open to constructing new world environments; he
is bound to incessantly perceive new resistances, new occasions, and new impulsions.
1
Cf. Ibid., p. 387.
2
There is only one “Christian hope”; however, it has been interpreted differently throughout the history of
theology. Therefore, it is useful to define Moltmann’s hope. In fact, I distinguish “Christian hope” from
“biblical hope” of Moltmann in order to articulate according to Moltmann, Christian hope is biblical hope,
which is based on God of Israelite history and Jesus as recorded in the Scripture.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “La religion de l’espérance”, p. 388-389.
4
In fact, from the anthropological perspective, by nature, man desires perfection and happiness. E. Bloch
says that after achieving what he expects, man still aspires for something better because his desire is never
completely satisfied (cf. E. BLOCH, The Principle of Hope, vol. 3, p. 1365). K. H. Pesche argues: “Hence
hope remains a permanent companion of temporal life. Hope for a better future is ineradicably grounded in
the limitation of man’s finiteness and his longing for perfect goodness and completion” (K. H. PESCHKE,
Christian Ethics, vol. II, p. 51).
5
J. MOLTMANN, “La religion de l’espérance”, p. 390.
144
Man is a creator, a discoverer, and a conqueror. “In hope, man recognizes every situation,
in which he finds himself, a stop along his journey, as a point he has to pass through and
leave behind in order to assume his humanity.”1 However, this human hope has its
foundation and stimulus in human nature, which desires a more perfect future, while
Christian hope is based in God.
1.2.3.2. Christian hope

St. Ignatius exhorted Christians of the Ephesian community to pray for men
(probably pagans or enemies) because there is hope for them: “And be without ceasing in
behalf of other men; for there is hope of repentance, that they may attain to God.”2 He
also mentioned the “new hope” received from Christ: “If, therefore, those who were
brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no
longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which
also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death.”3 This hope is well founded in
Jesus Christ who suffered not in appearance but in reality: “But as for me, I do not place
my hopes in one who died for me in appearance, but in reality.”4 Christians’ hope in
Jesus Christ was so strong that they came forward to suffer martyrdom.5 Clement of
Rome expected the resurrection and taught people to have hope: “Let us consider,
beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection, of
which He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first fruits by raising Him from the dead
(cf. 1Cor.15:20; Col.1:18)… Having then this hope, let our souls be bound to Him who is
faithful in His promises, and just in His judgments.”6 The Didache relates hope to
eschatology: Christians expect the resurrection at the parousia which will take place at an
unknown time, with eschatological signs, and they are exhorted to persevere in their faith
and be ready for this event.7
During Patristic times, there was also the Gnostic heresy regarding hope. The
Gnostics encouraged Christians to practice withdrawal from responsibilities and
1
Ibid., p. 391.
2
ST. IGNATIUS, Ephesians, chap. X.
3
ST. IGNATIUS, Magnesians, chap. IX.
4
ST. IGNATIUS, Trallians, chap. X.
5
Cf. IGNATIUS, Phila, chap XI.
6
ST. CLEMENT OF ROME, 1Cor. XXIV and XXVII.
7
Cf. J. QUASTEN, Patrology, vol. 1, Allen, Texas: Christian Classics, 1950, p. 35-36.
145
commitments to community because they considered salvation as “escape from the body,
the world, human history, and familial and social responsibilities”1
Until the time of Thomas Aquinas, the theology of hope in the medieval period
focused on the expectation of an other-worldly good, namely judgment, the beatific
vision at death, eternal life, etc. Thus, hope was considered in relation to eschatology in
the strict sense. During that period hope was more shadowed by pessimism, for death,
judgment, purgatory, and hell were graphically described in art and popular piety.
St. Thomas Aquinas treated the subject of hope thoroughly. Hope was considered
one of the three theological virtues, with faith and love. The object of hope consists not
only of eschatological good, namely eternal life and enjoyment of God, but also temporal
goals on earth.2 However, according to Moltmann, Thomas’ theology of hope “is, in fact,
not the theology of a ‘biblical hope’, but rather the anthropology of natural desire
(appetitus naturalis), of humanity’s inner self-transcendence which finds its response in
the metaphysical theology of the Highest Good (summum bonum).”3
The grounds, content, and practice of hope have been the points focused on in
Christian hope, through the history of theology. In Reformation theology, Luther gave
Christians a more passive role in obtaining grace. Calvin opposed the teaching of the
universality of the salvific will of God. More radically, the Anabaptists practiced a
counter cultural way of life as the expression of their hope. The Quietists advocated a
passive tranquility of life. The Enlightenment fostered the individualization of hope.
In the Catholic theology of hope, we notice a similar ‘reformed’ practice of hope,
such as the Franciscans who advocated a more radical interpretation of the Scripture and
consequently practiced counter cultural ways of life. With regard to the contents of hope,
we witness change from otherworldly to temporal goals. The 19th century brought the
rediscovery of the meaning of the teachings of Jesus concerning the kingdom of God,
which is already present and on its way to its consummation. Consequently, hope
encourages involvement in the world.4
1
M. K. HELLWIG, “Hope” in M. DOWNEY (ed), The New Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality, p. 507.
2
Cf. ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 17, a. 3-4.
3
J. MOLTMANN, “Christian Hope: Messianic or Transcendent? A Theological Discussion with Joachim of
Fiore and Thomas Aquinas” in Horizon 12/2, 1985, p. 328-348, at 333.
4
For a further view of an evolutionary understanding of Christian hope, cf. M. K. HELLWIG, “Hope” in M.
DOWNWY (ed.), The New Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality, p. 506-515.
146
From our exposé so far, we see that the interpretation and implications of hope as
Christian hope has not been consistent throughout Church history. This caused Moltmann
to have recourse to Scripture to find a true meaning of Christian hope. For him, Christian
hope must be a biblical hope, which also relates to revelation.
1.2.3.3. Moltmann’s biblical hope

Moltmann refutes two extreme types of eschatology: One is that (misinterpreted)
Christian eschatology which ‘regards eschatology as concerned merely with the final,
closing events of history’; the other is the eschatology which is only concerned with
‘present eternity’. These two types of eschatologies are influenced by Greek thinking,
which considers the logos as ‘the epiphany of the eternal present of being and finds the
truth in that’. Whereas Christian eschatology is not rooted in the Greek logos, but in “the
promise which has stamped the language, the hope and the experience of Israel.”1 In
order to interpret Christian hope correctly, we have to know who the God of hope is.
Moltmann describes the God of Christian hope: “The God who reveals himself in Jesus
must be thought of as the God of the Old Testament, as the God of the exodus and the
promise, as the God with ‘future as his essential nature’, and therefore must not be
identified with the Greek view of God, with Parmenides’ eternal present of Being, with
Plato’s highest Idea and with the Unmoved Mover of Aristotle, not even with his
attributes.”2
Christian hope will be correctly interpreted when it is based on the God who
promises Israel and is faithful to his promises. The two principal elements in Christian
hope are the God of history and his promises. Hope as Christian hope points man to his
future because the ultimate object of hope is being raised from the dead and being with
God, which will not take place until the parousia of Jesus. In fact, unless man is raised
from the dead, he (body and soul) will not be with God. In this sense, Jesus becomes an
essential factor in Christian hope, because without his resurrection, Christians would
have no hope in the God of the resurrection; if Jesus remained dead, Christians would not
take the promise of resurrection seriously. Because Jesus is alive, his promise of coming
back is credible. Christians hope to see him as he really is when he comes back. The
1
2
Ibid., p. 140.
147
future of God and the future of man draw man to hope in the accomplishment of hope,
which he expects and anticipates.
1.2.3.4. Hope and revelation

Christians have hope in God who is not an Idea, but a person. They hope in a
personal God who does not remain within himself and unknown to man, but is a God
who reveals himself to man and whom man wants to know. Therefore, man raises a basic
question: who is the God I hope in? Moltmann disagrees with the answers proposed by
the existential theology of R. Bultmann and the transcendental theology of K. Barth.
The question is posed in this manner: How does God reveal himself to man? Can
man perceive what God reveals? Does God reveal to us what he is or what we are? In
other words, does the self-revelation of God consist of what God is or what we are?
Bultmann and Barth’s answers accentuate “transcendental subjectivity”, but one’s is
God’s while the other’s is man’s, respectively. According to Bultmann, God is
transcendent. Man cannot perceive God. If man wants to discover who God is and grasp
what God reveals of himself, man only needs to know himself, who is a human being.
Man has to find God through discovering the existence of man. God is found in the
context of human existence. “Thus God can be spoken of only in connection with our
own existence.”1 Bultmann’s theology of revelation is anchored in the “transcendental
subjectivity” of God and the existential theology of man. Conversely, for Barth, man is
transcendent, i.e. man has no capacity to get to know God. No languages, no perceptions
can describe God. “God is not an object of any thinking, by which I would be able to, in
my own way, admit or deny his existence.”2 Only God in His presence tells man who he
is: Deus dixit.
Moltmann disapproves of Bultmann’s existential theology for the following
reason: man’s comprehension of God becomes dependent on the existential individual.
1
Ibid., p. 59. Bultmann was influenced by Wilhelm Herrmann (1846-1922), a liberal Lutheran theologian
and professor from 1879 until his death at Marburg, where Bultmann also was an exegete. Moltmann
interprets Herrmann’s view that “revelation is not instruction, and not an emotional impulse. Revelation of
God cannot be objectively explained, but it can certainly be experienced in man’s own self…The revealing
of God in his working upon ourselves is therefore as unfathomable, as non-derivable, as much grounded in
itself as the living of life, which no one can explain, but everyone can experience” (J. MOLTMANN,
Theology of Hope, p. 52); cf. W. HERRMANN, The Communion of the Christian with God (German 1886),
London: SCM 1972.
2
H. MOTTU, “L’espérance chrétienne dans la pensée de J. Moltmann” in Revue de théologie et de
philosophie 17, 1967, p. 242-258, at 246.
148
According to Moltmann, we cannot separate man as individual from the objects he

projects incessantly. In other words, we cannot understand ourselves without considering
the context in which we live and think.1 According to Moltmann, the future component is
the paramount element in the theology of hope. Moltmann disapproves Barth’s
transcendental theology of the subjectivity of man because if the ‘self-revelation of God’
means the ‘pure presence of God, an ‘eternal presence of God in time’, then there is no
future of God. Consequently, “the event of the resurrection of Christ would in itself
already be the eschatological fulfillment, and would not point beyond itself to something
still outstanding that is to be hoped for and awaited.”2 Again, in the transcendental
theology of Barth, God lacks a future.3
Moltmann’s concept of revelation derives from the God of the Exodus and the
resurrection of Jesus, who has entered into a covenant with his people. Christian hope is
not a hope in a transcendent God - ‘I-ness’, but in a God who gets involved in the history
of his people. Indeed, “if God confesses to his covenant and promises in adopting,
confirming, renewing, continuing and fulfilling them, then God confesses to God, then he
confesses to himself. For the essence and the identity of the God of promises lies not in
his absoluteness over and beyond history, but in the constancy of his freely chosen
relation to his creatures, in the constancy of his electing mercy and faithfulness.”4 The
principle thesis of revelation, according to Moltmann, is that the act of God’s revealing
himself appears in his faithfulness to his promises, through which he manifests himself:
“He (God) becomes identifiable where he identifies himself with himself in the historic
act of faithfulness…But if the revelations of God are promises, then God ‘himself’ is
revealed where he ‘keeps covenant and faithfulness for ever’ (Ps. 146:6).”5 Furthermore,
1
Cf. H. MOTTU, “L’espérance chrétienne dans la pensée de J. Moltmann”, p. 248; J. MOLTMANN, Theology
of Hope, p. 65,
2
Ibid., p. 58.
3
Both the existential theology of Bultmann and the transcendental theology of Barth entail religious
privacy. In other words, the revelation of God is experienced by individuals, and this experience is not
public; it is an experience of “I-Thou”. Moltmann does not explicitly oppose this privacy characteristic, but
we understand that if revelation is the eschatological kerygma announced as a promise not only to
individuals, but also to society, then Moltmann would agree with J. B. Metz, who explicitly opposes the
characteristic of privacy in the theology of Bultmann and Barth. (cf. J. B. METZ, Theology of the World,
London: Burns & Oats Limited, 1969, p.110, trans. from the German Zur Theologie der Welt, Mainz:
Mathias-Grünewa;t-Verlag, Munich : Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1968).
4
5
Ibid., p. 116; cf. R. G. WILBURN, “Some Questions on Moltmann’s Theology of Hope”, p. 581.
149
God’s self-revelation in his promises reaches to the novum ultimum in the event of Jesus
Christ. “The Easter appearances and revelations of the risen Lord are manifestly
understood as foretaste and promise of his still future glory and lordship.”1 In this sense,
Christian hope, according to Moltmann, is biblical hope which is based on God who
reveals himself in his promises, both in the Old and New Testaments.
In refuting the theologies of Bultmann and Barth, Moltmann does not evade the
fundamental question man poses for himself regarding an issue related to revelation: Who
am I? In fact, both ‘anthropological hope’ and ‘biblical hope’ entail this same question.
Only the method of finding the answer and the answer itself are different. Both realize
that man is a homo absconditus; however, while anthropological hope helps man discover
who he is at present, biblical hope leads man to his future and shows him who he will be.
With regard to method, anthropological hope holds man within himself to discover
himself, while biblical hope pulls man out of himself. He stands “excentrically to himself
in the facultas standi extra se coram Deo, as Luther called it. He is ahead of himself in
hope in God’s promise.”2 He experiences in himself contradiction and death, but gets out
of himself to put his hope in God and hope for a better future. His future depends on the
future of he whom he puts his hope in. Luther, interpreting Rm. 8: 19: “For creation
awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God”, praised the apostle
but disapproved of philosophers and metaphysicians: philosophers and metaphysicians
only have hope in improving the present state of things while the Apostle directs his hope
towards the future.3 Moltmann is able to bring revelation, promise, hope and anticipation
of the future together: “Revelation, recognized as promise and embraced in hope, thus
sets an open stage of history, and fills it with missionary enterprise and the responsible
exercise of hope, accepting the suffering that is involved in the contradiction of reality,
and setting out towards the promised future.”4
1.2.4. The foundation and object of hope

The ultimate object of hope is God. In him one can have total happiness.
However, man also hopes for intermediate good objects, for they are instrumental in
1
2
Ibid., p. 91.
3
Cf. ibid., p. 35.
4
Ibid., p. 86.
150
achieving the ultimate object, which is happiness in God. In this sense, hope aims at the
future. Indeed, after the experiences of wars and holocausts, people not only hoped for a
better life on earth but indeed also hoped for ultimate happiness.
If because being naturally limited, man has hope, he also only hopes because he
thinks what he hopes for will be attainable and that there is either a guarantee and/or
promise of fulfillment of his hope. The guarantee and promise of Christian hope is
founded in Jesus Christ and his message; his resurrection, his promise of return, of raising
all flesh, and of new heaven and new earth. Moltmann emphasizes that all future events,
particularly the future of Jesus Christ, affect the present life of Christians.
In the theology of hope, it is not the past or present, but the future that is the point
of departure. It is the future of Christ that man hopes for; it is his own resurrection that
man hopes for. These two principal objects of hope, which will take place in the future, in
fact, already draw all other objects of hope, even now, such as: happiness, justification,
justice, peace, love, etc.
The earthly history of Jesus, which has already taken place, is the event that
points to another event of Jesus, which is his parousia. Moltmann distinguishes futurum
from adventus, which means “what will be” and “what is coming” respectively.
According to him, futurum is determined by past and present; futurum “offers no special
reason for hope, for the past predominates, inasmuch as that which is not yet, will one
day no longer be. Because what is future is already latent in the tendencies of process,
these tendencies cannot, either, bring anything astonishingly new.”1 On the contrary,
adventus, which indicates the meaning of parousia, means “the coming of persons, or the
happening of events, and literally means presence… The word is kept exclusively for
Christ’s coming presence in glory.”2 B. Mondin explains Moltmann’s ideas precisely:
“Futurum means the bringing out in a later temporal phase what was already contained in
the original potentialities of things. Adventus means what may occur not as a result of the
potentialities of things but thanks to the agency of an external power. In other words, the
futurum is extrapolated from the factors and processes of past and present… On the
contrary, the future as adventus of somebody else, cannot be extrapolated from history
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Coming of God, p. 25.
2
Ibidem.
151
but only anticipated…Obviously, Christian eschatology and theology of hope are not
based on futurum but on adventus.”1 In this sense, in saying ‘the parousia of Christ’, he
does not mean ‘his coming again’ or ‘his second coming’, but means the ‘future coming
of Christ’.2 In other words, if we talk about Jesus’ second coming or his coming again,
we are talking about his future; while in talking about his future coming or his parousia,
we are talking about his adventus. Precisely, the second coming or the coming again of
Jesus is an event in the future, while the parousia or the future coming of Christ means
the person of Jesus Christ in the future. The second coming is extrapolated from the first
coming, while the future coming of Christ (the coming Jesus Christ) cannot be
extrapolated, but only anticipated.
The impetus of hope is the coming Christ whom one will only see face-to-face
when his parousia takes place. The coming Christ will grant his believers what they hope
for. Realizing that their hope will be fulfilled in the future, Christians anticipate this event
in becoming more active in the present.3 For Moltmann, hope without anticipation
expressed in its translation into good works, is indeed opium. In fact, Christian hope
entails anticipation and the proof of this anticipation is involvement in social and political
works. Christian hope entails a consequence, which is the anticipation in an active
involvement in the world of present. Thus, the future, which is the goal of hope, affects
the present life of man. In this sense, Moltmann says: “The subject of the transformation
of the world is for him (man) therefore the spirit of the divine hope. Thus his experience
and his expectation of history is both opened up and tied down by the future promises of
the God he believes.”4
1
B. MONDIN, “Theology of hope and the Christian message”, p. 48-49. Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Antwort auf
die Kritik der ‘Theologie der Hoffnung’” in W. D. MARSCH (ed.), Diskussion über die Theologie der
Hoffnung, Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1967, p. 212.
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Coming of God, p. 25-26.
3
Along the same lines as Moltmann “W. Pannenberg sees the end, the consummation or fulfillment, as
already realized by anticipation in the resurrection of Christ, where it can already be deciphered … Hope is
the advocate of the immense openness of the promised future amid the reality of faith and the reality of
salvation in history… Hope is not the opium of the people but an impulse to change the world in the
perspective of God’s promise” (F. KERSTIENS, “Hope” in K. RAHNER (ed.), Encyclopedia of Theology, p.
650-655, at 653, 654, 655).
4
152
1.3. Sins against hope

If hope helps man keep trusting that the promises of God will be fulfilled and thus
continuing believing in God, the consequence of the absence of hope has great effect in
the life of Christians. St. Thomas considers despair and presumption as the sins against
hope, while Moltmann calls them hopelessness. If hope is directed towards the future,
any attitude not considering the future denies hope. For Moltmann, despair halts man in
the present and does not lead him in hope in the future; presumption causes man to lose
patience in waiting for his goal in a further future; while ‘acquiescence in the present’
does not open to the future but is concerned just with what is present. All these three
attitudes are called the most serious ‘objections to hope’.
1.3.1. Despair and presumption

Moltmann says: “if faith thus depends on hope for its life, then the sin of unbelief
is manifestly grounded in hopelessness.”1 Hopelessness can assume two forms: despair
and presumption. “Presumption is a premature, self-willed anticipation of the fulfillment
of what we hope for from God. Despair is the premature, arbitrary anticipation of the
non-fulfillment of what we hope for from God. Both forms of hopelessness, by
anticipating the fulfillment or by giving up hope, cancel the wayfaring character of
hope.”2 Both two forms of hopelessness result from the lack of patience. Lacking
patience, a man of despair believes he will never get what he hopes for; without having
patience in waiting for the fulfillment of an expectation, a man of presumption wants it to
happen now.3 A man of presumption demands “impatiently either fulfillment now already
or absolutely no hope,”4 while a man of despair says: I have hoped for so long, but God
has not listened to me.
1
Ibid., p. 22
2
Ibid., p. 23.
3
Presumption can be “possible in two ways: one might rely on oneself rather than on God, or one might
rely on God to do the inappropriate, as when one would expect to obtain forgiveness without repentance”
(M. K. HELLWIG, “Hope” in M. DOWNEY (ed), The New Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality, p. 51).
According to K. Barth, in reality, very often what man hopes for will happen but at the end. But he has no
patience to wait for its arrival. Because of misunderstanding the conditions of hope, he deviates from true
hope. In this case, “hope might tend to become the rigid orientation of the Christian on what is finally
expected but is obviously not yet present nor visible nor attainable in his movement from present to the
future, and therefore his equally rigid turning aside from what is visible and attainable as he engages in this
movement.” (K. BARTH, Church Dogmatics. The Doctrine of Reconciliation, vol. IV, 3.2, p. 935).
4
153
Man expects that what he hopes for, will be fulfilled right now before his very
eyes, but quite often it happens later than he anticipates. This causes either despair or
presumption. When there is delay in fulfilling promises man had depended on, he can
lose hope altogether and then accuse God of lying. Man says: “they were his (God’s)
promise and his covenant, but he has not kept them. ‘Wilt thou indeed be unto me as a
deceitful brook, as waters that fails? (Jer. 15: 18)”.1
Moltmann discusses further about despair: The cause of despair is that man loses
patience in waiting for the fulfillment of hope. A man of despair had tried hope but with
his experience of not obtaining his object as early as he expected, he loses trust in the
promise of God. A man of despair resigns. He becomes indifferent to a world which in
fact has its future of prospects according to the promise of God. In face of the persistence
of unpleasantness in the world, hope becomes hopeless.2
In other words, despair results from impatience and at the same time from the
premature belief of having no possibility of obtaining a goal. Despair does not affirm the
potentiality God imparts in man. Despair supposes there is no possibility for change in
the world. Despair loses hope in the promise of God. With despair one becomes weak
and timid. Here is how Moltmann describes the consequence of despair in man:
“Temptation then consists not so much in the titanic desire to be as God, but in weakness,
timidity, weariness, not wanting to be what God requires of us. God has exalted man and
given him the prospect of a life that is wide and free, but man hangs back and lets himself
down. God promises a new creation of all things in righteousness and peace, but man acts
as if everything were as before. God honors him with his promises, but man does not
believe himself capable of what is required of him.”3 Further more, the most serious
1
Ibid., p. 122. In case there is delay in God’s response to man’s hope, man may come up with the
following explanations: a) God is faithful. He does not deny himself. What he says comes to pass.
Therefore if it does not come to pass, it was not the promise of God, but the lie of false prophet. b) The
reason for the withholding of the fulfilment is caused by man’s turning away from the hope in the God of
the promise or because of his disobedience to the commandments (Cf. J. MOLTMANN, Theology of Hope, p.
122-123).
2
According to K. Barth, a man of hopelessness resigns “in face of the veils which are not removed so long
as time endures,…, in face of the unredeemed nature of world history, and especially Church history, and
the individual history of the Christian, in face of the limits of thinking, speech and action possible under
these circumstances”( K. BARTH, Church Dogmatics. The Doctrine of Reconciliation, vol. IV, 3.2, p. 935).
3
J. MOLTMANN, Theology of Hope, p. 22-23. According to St. Thomas, self-indulgence and failure in self-
discipline lead man to despair. They cause man to become less attractive to the ultimate blessedness and
more listless with respect to obtaining blessedness. The consequence is that he loses the vision of the
154
impact of despair is losing one’s own nature, one’s own self with God within him.
Moltmann says: “Hope does not mean having some hopes, even numerous ones, but
means being open to hope. Despair does not mean burying some hopes or destroying
some illusions, but means abandoning all that one waits for, and in so doing, he abandons
himself.”1
God empowers man with hope which incites him to renew the world, bringing
hope to it; but becoming hopeless, he neglects his vocation: “God honours him with his
promises, but man does not believe himself capable of what is required of him. That is
the sin which most profoundly threatens the believer. It is not the evil he does, but the
good he does not, not his misdeeds but his omissions, that accuse him.”2 Certainly,
despair is sin; it is even the source of all sins. Because when losing hope, man loses
aptitude of fulfilling his vocation in the world: “Hence not only disobedience is punished
by not experiencing the fulfillment, but so also is resignation, weariness, departure from
the living hope. Despondency and despair are sin - indeed they are the origin of all sins.
Hence vice versa the commandments are easy to fulfill in the power that comes of hoping
in God and waiting upon him…Hence the demands for obedience and the demands for
hope are alike related to that horizon which opens up before the present.”3
Moltmann recapitulates: “neither in presumption nor in despair does there lie in
the power to renew life, but only in the hope that is enduring and sure. Presumption and
despair live off this hope and regale themselves at its expense.”4
1.3.2. Humble acquiescence in the present

Other than despair and presumption, there is another form of hopelessness, which
is humble acquiescence in the present. ‘Acquiescence’ comes from the Latin term
quiescere, which means, ‘to rest’. In European languages, ‘acquiesce’ means to agree, to
be content with, or to accept tacitly. Moltmann refers to “humble acquiescence” to
ultimate goal of life. In order to avoid despair, “it is important to keep one’s attention on the goal in order
to avoid drifting into a listless sadness in which it is no longer possible to imagine ultimate blessedness”(M.
K. HELLWIG, Hope, p. 510). Cf. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 20 in Summa Theologica
of St. Thomas, vol. III, Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classics, 1981, p. 1253-1256 (trans. by Fathers of
the English Dominican Province, originally published in 1911).
1
J. MOLTMANN, “la religion de l’espérance”, p. 390, trans. mine).
2
J. MOLTMANN, Theology of Hope, p. 23
3
Ibid., p. 121.
4
Ibid., p. 24-25.
155
connote either indifferentism towards the present or passive acceptance of the present.
This “humble acquiescence in the present” clearly is against hope because it ignores the
future potential in the present life.
1.3.2.1. Indifference towards the present

This is either nourished by nostalgia for the past or dreams of the future. The
present does not really exist but just pasts by.1 “Humble acquiescence in the present” also
includes those who are not involved in events of the present. They are passive. They feel
that only the events of the past are their experiences while not experiencing the present.
They can live in the present just by recalling the past; and they live as if they are still in
the past. In the opposite pole of our lives, there are also those who actually have no hope
because they only imagine a future life and live as if the future were already there in the
present. Therefore they are not realistic and practical in present life. For them, the future
becomes the sole source of thinking, yearning and rejoicing.2 For these two types of
people, who either live for the past or for the future, let the condition of the present pass
by without contributing to changing the present, which anticipates a better future with
hope as its object. In reality, those who are too pessimistic or presumptive can also fall
into acquiescence.
Moltmann believes that man should live actively in the present, facing reality of
personal and communal life. He “embraces all things in love, abandoning nothing to
annihilation but bringing to light how open all things are to the possibilities in which they
can live and shall live.”3 For Moltmann, hope cannot be idle, but active. Hope means a
better future; but if one does not improve the present how can one have a better future?
He cannot be acquiescent in present but change present states of life and society. Let’s
see what Moltmann has to say on this point: “The future is different from the present only
if it begins by changing the present… Hope for a new and different future is possible only
among the suffering and the oppressed. Genuine future thus always focuses on the
1
Cf. ibid., p. 26.
2
Cf. ibid., p. 26-27. K. Barth says that a person who falls into this category will live “only in expectation of
this final thing, living wholly in this expectation but in this expectation alone. He might thus close his eyes
to what is now visible in time, on this side of the goal and horizon, as to something unpleasant. He might
fail to do what might be done on the ground that it is meaningless and even dangerous. He might refuse to
have anything to do with the world in its present form of history, resigning in the face of it” (K. BARTH,
Church Dogmatics. The Doctrine of Reconciliation, vol. IV, 3.2, p. 935).
3
156
negativity of the present. And the ones who do hope and can hope for a genuinely new
future are those who exist on the shadow side of the present…The desirable and hopeful
future is anticipated in historical suffering and in suffering history, thus having its Sitz im
Leben among the suffering.”1
1.3.2.2. Solely the present

The second form of “humble acquiescence in the present” considers the present as
a moment of eternity. Therefore, there is not the element of future here: “The eternal
conceived as the present is arrested temporal succession. This moment characterizes the
present as a thing that has no past and no future. The moment is an atom of eternity.”2
Consequently, one accepts the present as the already definite destiny, without a
potentiality of change or future. On the contrary true hope sees the dying of the present
and the coming of the future. For those who accept the present as it is will not act
according to Christian hope, which invokes man’s effort to transform present conditions
as he anticipates the fulfillment of his hope. This behavior is due to man’s losing hope
because he does not see any improvement in the world while hoping for it. He feels that
God either is not interested in the world or does not have power to change it. In other
words, he passively accepts present conditions as they are. This form of “humble
acquiescence in the present” is also called resignation.3
The present in the light of Christian hope must be considered in connection to the
future.4 Because Christian hope is hope in the God of the exodus and the resurrection,
1
J. MOLTMANN, “Hope and the Biological Future of Man” in E. H. COUSINS (ed.) Hope and the Future of
Man, p. 91.
2
3
Cf. ibid., p. 30, 34.
4
One will not have hope if he is completely satisfied with the present; however, in reality nobody achieves
his fulfillment in the present. Consequently, he hopes for something better, and when hoping he envisions a
future that he necessarily analogizes from what he experiences at present. This understanding of the
relationship between present and future in rapport with hope is affirmed by J. B. Cobb “Since the future
cannot be conceived except as the future of what we have been and are, our image of the future is
inevitably based on analogy from what we have been and are” (J. B. COBB JR., “What Is the Future? A
Process Perspective” in E. H. COUSINS (ed.) Hope and the Future of Man, p. 17-18). Pannenberg underlines
that an element of the future is already present in the present and hope leads this present to the future:
“Human hope yearns for eternity, and this provides the standard for true progress that is not just continuous
and empty change. The fascination of progress depends on the degree to which it reflects eternity. It not
only approaches achievement, but already participates in it because the essential future penetrates into the
present. The essential future participates in eternity and therefore constitutes the depth of reality, the
mystery of the present. Only because the essential future is already present can it be anticipated, and thus
157
who is the God not only of present but also of future, then those who have hope in him
cannot be entirely only for the present, but also for the future. The God of Christian hope
is the God who “first of all promises his presence and his kingdom and makes them
prospects for the future, is a God with future as his essential nature, a God of promise and
of leaving the present to face the future, a God whose freedom is the source of new things
that are to come.”1 J. Macquarrie thinks that Moltmann’s theology of hope states that
“hope is necessarily creative; it motivates man to be imaginative. A man of hope “plans
for the future of mankind… An approach to the future that is truly hopeful and creative
allows room for new developments.”2
We have seen that according to Moltmann the sins against hope are despair,
presumption and ‘humble acquiescence in the present’. All three of these sins exclude the
element of the future, which is the nature of hope. Moltmann emphatically underlines this
future element, for the future is the target of the journey of eschatological hope, which
can achieve its object only in the future. Despite his emphasis on the future, Moltmann
balances his theology of hope by underscoring the element of the present, without which
there will be no hope, for hope starts from the present where one find imperfection. Hope,
therefore, embraces both present and future. Hope brings future to present by involving
oneself in the conditions of the present and transforming it. “Hence the believer does not
simply take the day as it comes, but looks beyond the day to the things which, according
to the promise of him who is the creator ex nihilo and raiser of the dead, are still to come.
The present of the coming parousia of God and of Christ does not translate us out of time,
or does it bring time to a standstill, but opens the way for time and sets history in
motion...”3
provide identity to our personal life even now, although the process of our lives is still open” (W.
PANNENBERG, “Future and Unity” in E. H. COUSINS (ed.), Hope and the Future of Man, p. 74).
1
J. MOLTMANN, Theology of Hope, p.30.
2
J. MACQUARRIE, Christian Hope, London & Oxford: Mowbrays, 1978, p. 14. Cf. J. MOLTMANN,
Theology of Hope, p. 35. Macquarrie explains in this way: Hope connects present to future. If the world is
considered already as the best it can be, then man will have no desire to transform it; hope would become
superfluous. On the contrary, if one holds that the world is so bad that no alteration can change it and there
is no indication of a better future, then one despairs. Therefore, in order to have hope, one needs to have a
vision of a better future which embraces the present and transforms it, and at the same time requires a
present which offers something for hope to start with. Our present condition should be neither utterly bad
nor perfect. For then man would become either self-satisfied and self-sufficient or hopeless (cf. J.
MACQUARRIE, Christian Hope, p. 12-13).
3
158
Moltmann concludes that hope includes all things that are present and transforms
them with a view to the future, for all things have the possibility of becoming what they
really are: “The hope that is staked on the creator ex nihilo becomes the happiness of the
present when it loyally embraces all things in love, abandoning nothing to annihilation
but bringing to light how open all things are to the possibilities in which they can live and
shall live. Presumption and despair have a paralyzing effect on this, while the dream of
eternal present ignores it.”1
1.4. The rapport between faith, hope and love

Faith, hope and love are the most important virtues. Which one comes first? Can
one exist without the other? What is their relationship? Do non-Christians also have hope
and love? But only Christians have faith, and they also practice hope and love.
1.4.1. The Prioritas and primatus of faith and hope

Moltmann writes about the relationship between hope and faith with the sub-title:
‘The Believing Hope’. Why does he not name it ‘The Hoping Faith’? The answer is not
only that the subject of the discussion is not faith but hope, but also because this sub-title
“The Believing Hope” denotes a Christian hope which is based on faith and is varied
from the non-believing hope which is a secular hope unrelated to faith. This sub-title is
clarified further by the theological principle of hope, namely: “Thus in the Christian life
faith has the priority, but hope the primacy.”2 In fact, there is a close relationship between
hope and faith, to the point that there is no separating them. Agreeing with Bloch, who
considers that economy has priority, but humanity primacy, Moltmann suggests that faith
comes first (priority) then hope.3 Hope is the hope of faith but not vice versa. “Without
hope faith falls to pieces, becomes a fainthearted and ultimately a dead faith;”4 therefore,
hope has primacy. Yet, faith comes first then hope, but faith must extend to hope. Faith
1
Ibid., p. 32.
2
Ibid., p. 20.
3
R. Gibellini ably explains E. Bloch’ system of the relationship between economy and humanity. In this
relationship, Bloch considers economy as prioritas and humanity as primatus. If one wants to establish a
mutual relationship between socialism and democracy, one must give priority to economy and primacy to
humanity. In other words, in order to reconstruct a new and better society, we need to depart from economy
in view of obtaining an ultimate goal for humanity (cf. R. GIBELLINI, La Panorama de la théologie au XXe
Siècle, Paris: Cerf, 1994, p. 322-323; E. BLOCH, Naturrecht und menschliche Würde, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp,
1961, p. 13).
4
159
implies hope because through faith hope has the assurance of finding Christ. Hope
implies faith because with hope faith can continue to walk on its right path.
The theology of hope has replaced the formula ‘fides quaerens intellectum’ with
another: ‘spes quaerens intellectum - spero, ut intelligam’, which indicates that “it is
hope that is the mobilizing and driving force of faith’s thinking, of its knowledge of, and
reflections on, human nature, history and society. Faith hopes in order to know what it
believes.”1 “The hope thereby kindled spans the horizons which then open over a closed
existence. Faith binds man to Christ. Hope sets this faith open to the comprehensive
future of Christ. Hope is therefore the inseparable companion of faith.”2
‘The Believing Hope’ not only connotes an inseparable companionship between
faith and hope but also indicates a function of hope and faith in the world. With
‘Believing Hope’, Christians do not flee an imperfect world but engage in it in order to
change it for the better. Christians’ active involvement in the world is possible only
because there is hope in faith. ‘Believing Hope’ is founded on the resurrected Christ who
had first to suffer. Indeed, “it is only in following Christ who was raised from suffering,
from a god-forsaken death and from the grave that it gains an open prospect in which
there is nothing more to oppress us, a view of the realm of freedom and of joy. Where the
bounds that mark the end of all human hopes are broken through in raising the crucified
one, there faith can and must expand into hope.”3 Only as directed toward Jesus Christ is
the ‘Believing Hope’ possible; therefore, Christ is the beginning and the object of the
‘Believing Hope’. “Faith binds man to Christ. Hope sets this faith open to the
comprehensive future of Christ…Hope is nothing else than the expectation of those
things which faith has believed to have been truly promised by God.”4 In this sense, ‘the
Believing Hope’ means that faith comes first and brings hope to man, while hope assists
faith accompanying it on its journey of finding the truth and happiness which is the object
1
Ibid., p. 33; cf. B. MONDIN, “Theology of hope and the Christian message”, p. 49.
2
J. MOLTMANN, Theology of Hope, p. 20. F. Kerstiens says: “The reception of the Easter message happens
in this way: man inserts himself into this new historical orientation opened up by Christ’s resurrection; he
does so through a faith which is at the same time a hope of fulfillment, and by striving towards the change
of this world through the practice of a Christian life. This hope is not an addition, an afterthought, to faith,
but the very heart of faith itself”(F. KERSTIENS, The Theology of Hope in Germany Today, p. 107).
3
4
Ibid., p. 20.
160
of hope. “Faith is the foundation upon which hope rests, hope nourishes and sustains
faith.”1
Hope accompanies faith on the journey of the Church and the Christians in the
world. “This faith can have nothing to do with fleeing the world, with resignation and
with escapism. In this hope the soul does not soar above our vale of tears to some
imagined heavenly bliss, nor does it sever itself from the earth…It sees in the resurrection
of Christ not the eternity of heaven, but the future of the very earth on which his cross
stands. It sees in him the future of the very humanity for which he dies. That is why it
finds the cross the hope of the earth.”2 With the eschatological and transcendental hope in
his own resurrection, man now needs to encounter the risen One through faith. In this
sense, hope needs faith in order to confirm that hope is reasonable and its object, i.e., the
resurrection, can be achieved, because the promise of Jesus and his future are reliable. In
this sense, Moltmann says “Christian eschatology cannot renounce the intellectus fidei et
spei.”3
1.4.2. Love and ‘believing hope’

However, hope always experiences the contradiction of the death and resurrection
of Jesus Christ. From this analogy, hope finds contradiction in the world. At the same
time there is consolation and hope, and detest against suffering and death. “Hope finds in
Christ not only a consolation in suffering, but also the protest of the divine promise
against suffering…Those who hope in Christ can no longer put up with reality as it is, but
begin to suffer under it, to contradict it.”4 The ‘Believing Hope’ compels an active
involvement in the world. Because of this involvement in the world, there is always a
dialectical element in hope. Hope continues to accompany faith because its achievement
will not be fulfilled until the day of the fulfillment of the promise of God. Suffering and
death continue to exist. Christians continue to see the imperfection of the world because
their ‘Believing Hope’ is unquenchable and, in recognizing the imperfect world, their
unquenchable hope drives them to involvement in the world. The Church continues to
live in the midst of the world, and with the ‘Believing Hope’ the Church is “the source of
1
Ibidem.
2
Ibid. p. 21.
3
Ibid., p. 35.
4
Ibidem.
161
continual new impulses towards the realization of righteousness, freedom and humanity
here in the light of the promised future that is to come. This Church is committed to
answer for the hope that is in it.”1
With hope and faith the Church and the Christians transform the present world,
bettering its condition by bringing in it love. Where there is faith, there is hope; where
there are faith and hope, there one can find love: “Where in faith and hope we begin to
live in the light of the possibilities and promises of this God, the whole fullness of life
discloses itself as a life of history and therefore a life to be loved.”2 Moltmann says that
with ‘believing hope’ men and women will feel impelled to improve the world in the
form of practical love: “Christian hope cannot cling rigidly to the past and the given and
ally itself with the utopia of the status quo. Rather, it is itself summoned and empowered
to creative transformation of reality, for it has hope for the whole reality. Finally, the
believing hope will itself provide inexhaustible resources for the creative, inventive
imagination of love.”3
2. THE OBJECTS OF HOPE IN MOLTMANN’S THEOLOGY

Hope, being a noun, always entails a complement, i.e., a hope of something; or
hope, being a verb, also necessitates an object, i.e., hope for something. We hope to
encounter the coming Jesus when he will raise us up, judge us and renew all things in
order to summon all into his kingdom. But all the final events are already anticipated.
Therefore, we also have hope in what may be achieved even now, for a better world, for
other religions, for peace, for the well being of nature and other living creatures, for a
better life, etc. All these objects of hope are discussed as follows.
1
Ibid., p. 22. If, according to Moltmann, it is hope that upholds faith, according to Rahner, hope also needs
faith in order to know the fact of Jesus’ resurrection man relies on in hoping for his own resurrection.
Rahner says: “An act of hope in one’s own resurrection is something which takes place in every person by
transcendental necessity… For every person wants to survive in some final and definitive sense…this
transcendental hope in resurrection is the horizon of understanding for experiencing the resurrection of
Jesus in faith. For when it is not suppressed, this transcendental hope in resurrection necessarily seeks the
historical mediation and confirmation in which it can become explicit”(K. RAHNER, Foundations of
Christian Faith, New York: Crossroad, 1978, p. 268-269).
2
J. MOLTMANN, Theology of Hope, p. 31-32. Mondin describes the relationship between hope, faith and
love in an elegant phrase: “Indeed faith looks mainly toward the past and charity towards the present. Only
hope is essentially oriented towards the future”(B. MONDIN, “Theology of hope and the Christian
message”, p. 49).
3
162
2.1. The hope in righteousness

According to Moltmann, righteousness means correspondence and harmony. In
this sense, it presupposes a relationship of two parties. The source and origin of this
righteousness is God who makes righteous all his creatures including human beings,
other living creatures, and all created things. Since righteousness entails correspondence
and harmony, one can study it from the anthropological perspective. In other words, one
can find righteousness on earth only if human beings live in harmony with God, with
other living creatures and with nature. The harmony man can find with God is only
granted by God both in the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament, despite
unfaithfulness on the part of people, God always remained faithful to his covenant and
God considered them as his chosen people - still in harmony with him. In the New
Testament, God grants his people righteousness through Jesus Christ, i.e., through Jesus
Christ’s offering himself to man; God claims, by the merit of Christ, that man is
righteous.
Using the anthropological approach, I will show that Moltmann includes the
righteousness of nature and other living things as conditions for the righteousness of
human beings. In this section, I will first discuss the ‘righteousness of God’, then the
‘righteousness of man and that of other creatures’.
2.1.1. The righteousness of God

Although God by his nature is righteous, in the Old Testament, the people of
Israel considered God righteous not because of who he is ontologically, but because he
was faithful to his covenant with his people, despite the unfaithfulness on the part of the
people. God kept his promise of bringing the Israelites back out of exile and of restoring
their land (Is. 46: 13; 51: 1; 56: 1; Ps. 97: 2), of being their refuge and provider (Ps. 31: 1,
36: 6-13; 71: 2; 88: 12; 143:11); but the ultimate promise is that of their salvation.1
In the same interpretation of God’s faithfulness to his promise, Paul understands
the righteousness of God as God’s faithfulness in communal relationships, as an event
brought about by God, and as an event from which there arises a new creation and new
life on account of faith (cf. Rom. 1: 17). The righteousness of God is able to come to
human beings only on account of Jesus Christ (cf. Rom. 4: 25, II Cor. 5: 21). Since
1
Cf. ibid., p. 207.
163
righteousness entails a communal relationship between God and human beings, it

involves the right on both sides: the unjust is asserted justification and a right to ‘stand
before God and endure in his judgment while God has the right to claim his righteous
children, i.e. his lordship over them.1 It is “a reciprocal event of justificatio Dei active et
passive: justification means that God justifies man by grace and that man acknowledges
God’s justice in confessing his sins, so that in this reciprocal event not only the sinner but
God, too, is given his right.”2
The righteousness of God is manifested to those who have faith in Jesus Christ
(cf. Rm. 3: 21-23). God has shown his righteousness by declaring innocent offenders who
have faith in Jesus Christ, who by his blood expiates their sins. As Abraham claimed
righteous through faith, not through the law of circumcision, in the same way, a person is
justified by faith, not by his works under the law. In this sense, faith is credited to the
righteousness of man (cf. Rm. 3: 28). God keeps his promise by declaring men righteous
through faith, not through law. However, law is not abolished, but supported, for law
connotes also ‘custom’ or ‘principle’. Therefore, man receives justification through faith
in Jesus Christ who died for our sins and was raised for our righteousness (cf. Rm. 4: 25).
“Thus in the New Testament, too, we shall have to understand divine righteousness as
promise. In this promise the promised object is offered in the present, and yet it is
grasped in the believing hope which makes man ready to serve the future of the divine
righteousness in all things”3
According to Moltmann, with his righteousness, God cannot remain silent in face
of the unrighteous, but is a source of hope for the hungry and oppressed.4 God justifies
and sets everything right. The righteousness of God is “related to the practical and
specific personal and social conflicts of people who have never received justice, and
people who are themselves unjust.”5 According to Moltmann, the metaphysical
interpretation of justice which Paul and the synoptics point to, does not oppose the
political interpretation: “Because God has mercy on all sinners generally, he quite
specifically brings justice to people who have been deprived of it, and leads the unjust to
1
Cf. ibid., p. 207-208.
2
Ibid., p. 207.
3
Ibid., p. 207-208.
4
Cf. The Crucified God, p. 179.
5
J. MOLTMANN, The Spirit of Life, p.128.
164
repentance. If there is a divine liberation from the universal power of sins through the
energy of the creative Spirit which works for righteousness, this legitimates the liberation
from economic injustice, political oppression, cultural alienation and personal
discouragement.”1 In another passage, Moltmann talks about the justice and
righteousness of God, who will administer justice and righteousness to all in the sense
that he will bring righteousness, peace, and harmony to people, animals and creatures:
“He will bring righteousness and peace to the animal world as well, so that the wolves
will live with the lambs (cf. Isa. 11:6).”2 It is not the righteousness of God that will judge
and condemn, but on the contrary he will put right all his creatures.3 “God is just because
he makes the unjust just and creates justice for those who suffer under injustice.”4
The righteousness of God is primarily manifested in the resurrection of Jesus.
Because God is righteous, he cannot but raise Jesus from the dead. The resurrection of
Jesus corresponds to the righteousness of God. Indeed, “if God raised this dishonored
man in his coming righteousness, it follows that in this crucified figure he manifests his
true righteousness.”5
2.1.2. Justification of human beings

By virtue of their trusting in God’s faithfulness to the covenant and living in
accordance with the statutes of the covenant, God makes the people of God righteous.
And this is like man’s act of acceptance when he puts his trust in God. In reality his act is
not able to earn him his righteousness, but only God grants it to him: “The righteousness
of God requires everything that owes its existence to the action of God, that is, the whole
creation. The righteousness of God is the essence of its stability and the ground of its
subsistence. Without his justice and faithfulness nothing can exist, but everything is
swallowed up in nothingness.”6
The righteousness of God includes his faithfulness to his promise of sending a
Messiah to redeem the world. With the death and resurrection of Jesus, men are set right
before God, for he gives them a share in his new life of resurrection and in his future of
1
Ibidem.
2
J. MOLTMANN, The Way of Jesus Christ, p. 335; cf. Theology of Hope, p.204.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Way of Jesus Christ, p. 334-335.
4
Ibid., p.184.
5
6
165
eternal life, and offers himself for the justification of the world. This is the ground for the
hope of righteousness. God judges man righteous by the merit of Jesus. Man becomes
unrighteous through sin. But by Jesus’ offering of himself, God claims man righteous.
It is appropriate to take note of the fact that God, due to the death and resurrection
of Jesus Christ and Christians’ faith in him, grants human beings righteousness. God
demands only one condition for obtaining righteousness, which is having faith in Jesus
Christ.1 However, this condition, i.e., faith, is not the cause of righteousness; its
immediate cause is Jesus Christ. “Only justifying faith corresponds to the Christ crucified
‘for us’, for it is only through justifying faith that the liberating power of Christ’s
resurrection is experienced.”2
Only Jesus Christ with his life and history can merit righteousness for man. In
fact, the history of Christ has three effects on human beings: liberating them from the grip
of sin, redeeming them, and creating in them the energies of a new life. Christ was
handed over for our transgressions and raised for our justification (cf. Rm. 4: 25). “The
meaning and purpose of his suffering is our liberation from the power of sin and the
burden of our guilt. The meaning and purpose of his resurrection from the dead is our
free life in the righteousness of God. Forgiveness of sins and new life in the righteousness
of God: this is experience of faith.”3 Those who profess faith in Jesus are justified and
have a new life in the righteousness of God; they receive justification. Justification is
being righteous in front of God. Moltmann emphasizes the aspect of the new life brought
about and promised by Jesus who not only died but also was raised from the dead.4 “The
divine righteousness which is revealed in the cross and resurrection of Jesus accordingly
embraces both reconciliation with God and justification of life. It embraces forgiveness
of guilt and annihilation of the destiny of death. It embraces reconciliation and
1
For Luther, internally, man is sinful; he cannot come forward to ask for righteousness, but he has to rely
on the external/alien justice of Christ (iustitia Christi aliena). “Luther was thus led to a way of thinking
about Christian life that was very different from Augustinian and medieval transformationist models.
Instead of instantaneous transformation under grace, the imputation of an alien righteousness laid hold of in
faith and implying simultaneity is emphasized. Justification is complete in its imputation so that one is a
righteous person but simultaneously a sinner (simul iustus et peccator)” (S. J. DUFFY, The Dynamics of
Grace, Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1993, p. 187).
2
3
Ibid., p. 182.
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, Theology of Hope, p. 206.
166
redemption of the mortal body. It takes place in the pledge of reconciliation and the
promise of quickening.”1
How does Moltmann connect justification with holiness? Moltmann seems to give
humans a major role in his own fate with regard to salvation. Although he says that God
is the first subject of sanctification, he also affirms that man is the subject of his own
salvation. Man plays an active role of transforming himself through acts of holiness,
which presupposes the initial grace of God, who first invites him into a relationship: “We
are the subjects of our own lives, in the total form they take, when God calls us out of
relationships and makes us persons before himself. As determining subjects, with the
beginning of the new life we take God seriously and try to live a life that accords with
him; for that is what a sanctified life is.”2 In this sense, Moltmann rightly interprets the
theology of sanctification of Luther who says that men have been and continue to be
sanctified by the Holy Spirit who is called holy.3 Moltmann would agree with Luther who
says that justification means both the judgment of God in which He declares man
righteous without accounting for man’s works, and man’s actually becoming righteous
thanks to his works. We call both these possibilities the forensic theology of Luther.4 In
other words, both Luther and Moltmann identify the process of becoming holy with the
‘holy life’, a life of good deeds, following God’s proclaiming man’s justification. One
can say that righteousness has already been proclaimed in a faithful person, however he is
still becoming righteous and holy everyday, and he is waiting for its completion in hope.
2.1.3. Justification by faith alone

Since the time of schism in the West, the question of justification has come to the
fore in theological discussions. M. Luther is known for his argument of ‘justification by
faith alone’ as Article 4 of the Augsburg Confession of 1530 states: “We become
righteous before God by grace, for Christ’s sake, through faith alone.”5 Many Christians,
including theologians, wrongly understood that Luther excludes good works in Christian
1
Ibidem.
2
3
Cf. ibid., p. 45.
4
Cf. P. ALTHAUS, The Theology of Martin Luther, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966, p. 224-233.
5
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, God for Secular Society, p. 193.
167
life. However, Luther’s theology of justification is based on that of St. Peter and St. Paul,
and Luther asserts that justified Christians do perform good works.
2.1.3.1. Justification according to St. Peter and St. Paul

At the time of the Apostles, when the Church wanted to include the Gentiles
among Church members without obliging them to comply with the Mosaic law of
circumcision, Peter stood up to address the Council of Jerusalem: “He (God) made no
distinction between us and them (Gentiles), for by faith he purified their hearts… We
believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as
they”(Acts 15: 9, 11). Peter means that, Christian and Gentiles, all are in the same
condition of sinfulness. If we are saved, it is because God justifies us through faith. It is
the grace of God. In fact, “the universal meaning of the gospel of Christ for the Jews and
Gentiles is founded on the character of God’s justifying righteousness, which is
prevenient and has no precondition.”1 But if having faith in Jesus Christ is the condition
for justification, faith is the precondition here.
What does St. Paul say about justification? He says: “But now the righteousness
of God has been manifested apart from the law, though testified to by the law and the
prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe…For
we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Rom. 3: 21-
22; 28). Here the two aspects are mentioned: law and faith. Of course, law entails
accomplishment of what the law requires, which is work.
Moltmann says nothing other than what St. Paul says, i.e., the work of fulfilling
the law does not merit justification, but only merits it for man if man has faith in God
who raised Jesus from the dead: “If they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void,
and the promise made of none effect (Rom. 4: 14). But if, on the contrary, the promise is
set in force by God, then it confers righteousness by faith. Therefore it is of faith, that it
might be grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only
which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of
us all (Rom. 4:16)”2
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Way of Jesus Christ, p.186.
2
168
Therefore, Moltmann resembles Luther, whose theology of justification is also

heavily based on Pauline justification. Luther says: “You must believe that you can
accomplish nothing by your own works, but the only way is through Christ’s
righteousness.”1 “The apostle [Paul] says that there is no other righteousness than through
faith in Jesus Christ. All other works, even those according to the most holy laws of God,
do not offer righteousness.”2 The reason that our works cannot restore our righteousness
is that our sins are too great: “Our sins are so great and so far away from righteousness
that it was necessary for the Son of God to die so that righteousness could be given to
us.”3
Two points that are already clarified: a) Man’s works of fulfilling the law do not
merit his justification; b) Only Jesus Christ can merit man’s justification.
There are still two more questions needing to be discussed further: 1) In order to
receive the justification merited by Jesus Christ, what does man need to do? 2) Does
‘justification by faith alone’ exclude good works in the life of the justified Christian? We
will find the answers to the two questions in referring to both Moltmann and Luther.
2.1.3.2. Man’s initiative and good works

The answer to the first question is that man needs to initiate himself if he wants to
receive justification. But can he by his own force initiate himself or does he need help
from God? Moltmann, in agreeing J. Wesley, who says that man first needs a preliminary
divine grace that awakens his conscience and will and hastens him to repentance prior to
receiving justification, consents with Luther that man, by nature, needs a preliminary
grace of God in order to be able to initiate a process of receiving justification.4
1
M. LUTHER, By Faith Alone, Iowa Fall: World Bible Publishers, 1998, January 15. This is Luther’s book
of meditations, in which pages are not numbered but dated.
2
M. LUTHER, By Faith Alone, November 27.
3
Ibidem; cf. J. MOLTMANN, God for Secular Society, p. 193.
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Spirit of Life, p. 165. For Luther, the precondition for receiving justification is
acknowledging one’s own sinfulness and begging for righteousness from God. This precondition, one
cannot initiate by himself, but must rely on God’s grace: “God from eternity has ordained and set forth
Christ as propitiation for our sins, but that only for those who believe in Him. Christ wanted to become a
propitiation for us only through His blood, that is, he first had to make amends for us through the shedding
of His blood. And all this God did to declare his righteousness, that is, to make it known that all men are
sinners and in need of His righteousness”(M. LUTHER, Commentary on Romans, Grand Rapids: Kregel
Publications, 1976, p. 78).
169
With regard to the second question, Luther did not exclude good works. He
excluded only good works separated from faith. For him, good works which flow from
faith, in fact, are necessary and indeed a matter of course. Luther was aware of the
teaching of St. James: “We see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only”
(James. 2: 24) as well as that of St. Paul: “For it is not those who hear the law who are
just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified (Rom. 2: 13).
Luther understood that the Apostles distinguished good works resulting from faith and
good works of the law done without faith and divine grace. Works of the law are done
either out of fear of punishment or ‘the alluring hope of reward’; on the contrary, works
of faith are those deeds done in the spirit of love and liberty that flow from faith. The
Apostles opposed the false opinion holding that justification by faith does not need good
works. True faith needs good works. Luther concluded that the Apostles taught that: “it is
faith alone that justifies, regardless of works. Justification, therefore, does not presuppose
the works of the Law, but rather a living faith, which performs its proper works.”1
Moltmann explains the principle ‘sola gratia’ of Protestant theology as meaning
that once having faith through Christ (sola fide), Christians who, become righteous
through grace, can live without fear or worry about their salvation. All they need to worry
about is their neighbors. Indeed, faith is never alone because faith is always accompanied
by love, for faith cannot be passive, but active in love.2
Moltmann supports the “justification through faith alone” of Martin Luther and he
relates it to Christian life of faith not only in each Christian, but especially within each
Christian community. Moltmann says: “This justifying faith is directly tied up with the
calling of each and every Christian to life in the congregation…It follows that the
1
M. LUTHER, Commentary on Romans, p. 75. Cf. P. ALTHAUS, The Theology of Martin Luther, p. 235.
Luther’s understanding of the Apostles’ teaching on justification and good works is also in accordance with
St. Clement of Rome, who taught: “And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified
by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in
holiness of heart; but by faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to
whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen”(CLEMENT OF ROME, I Cor. XXXII). According to St. Clement,
justification generates love and love automatically entails good works. In this sense, good works follow
faith naturally. St. Clement continues: “What shall we do then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-
doing, and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! But
rather let us hasten with all energy and readiness of mind to perform every good work. For the Creator and
the Lord of all rejoices in His works”(CLEMENT OF ROME, I Cor. XXXIII). The sequence from faith to
Christian life is this: faith, justification, love and good works.
2
170
justifying faith with which the Church stands or falls needs the independent congregation
as its life-form, and indeed calls it into being… Justifying faith thus puts an end to
religious belonging and creates freedom in community.”1 Moltmann here indicates that
when a person is justified through faith, he is recognized as a free person with his own
integrity and particularity within his community. He has freedom to express his good
works of love in his community and others would appreciate his contributions to the
community.
In fact, once man has faith in Christ, he receives righteousness, and in him dwells
the Holy Spirit who activates him to be ready and glad to “do good to everyone, to serve
everyone, to suffer everything, out of love and praise to God who has shown him this
grace.”2 These activities of serving, suffering, and praising, therefore, are the natural
corollary of faith. We can also find discussions about this active life of the faithful
Christians ever present in Moltmann’s theology of the Church’s mission.
2.1.4. Righteousness and Jesus Christ

If, in the Old Testament, God granted his people righteousness through the works
of the law, in the New Testament justifying divine righteousness is granted without the
works of the law. It is Jesus who changes this framework. According to St. Paul, Jesus
was condemned to death in the name of God’s law, but then was raised by God, and “if
he has been raised by God and ‘justified’, then he redeems from the curse of the law
those who are his (Gal. 3:13).”3 Therefore, it is not the law anymore, but Jesus Christ
who brings righteousness to mankind through his death and resurrection. Moltmann
elucidates it in this way: “If the crucified Christ was counted among the sinners and
‘made sin’, then the risen Christ liberates from the power of sin. That is why the gospel in
which the crucified Christ is present by virtue of his resurrection becomes the power of
God for the salvation of everyone who believes. It brings the new justifying divine
righteousness without the works of the law.”4 Now people need to have faith in Jesus in
order to obtain righteousness.
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Open Church, p.114 and 115.
2
P. ALHAUS, The Theology of Martin Luther, p. 235.
3
J. MOLTMANN, The Way of Jesus, p. 184.
4
Ibidem.
171
Furthermore, if, in the Old Testament, the justifying righteousness was limited
only to those who performed the Mosaic law, which is not universal, in the New
Testament, Jesus Christ abolishes this boundary and righteousness becomes universal:
Jews and Gentiles alike can have faith in him. There is no more condition of the law, but
salvation is a gratuitous gift of God. “The universal meaning of the gospel of Christ for
Jews and Gentiles is founded on the character of God’s justifying righteousness, which is
prevenient and has no preconditions.”1
Moltmann emphasizes that it is not only the death of Jesus, but both his death and
resurrection are the two essential elements involved in the righteousness: “It is important
here to see that this divine righteousness has its ground both in the event of the cross and
in that of the resurrection, that is, both in his death and in his life.”2 If the Reformers
emphasized the death of Jesus as atonement for man’s sins and so justifying man,
Moltmann regards both his death and resurrection as the source of justification (cf.
Rom.4: 25). Moltmann argues that justification does not only mean ‘the forgiveness of
sins’ which is the effect of the death of Jesus on the cross, but also ‘the new life’ brought
about by the resurrection of Jesus. “Christ was raised for our justification (Rom. 4: 25)
and so that we might be saved (Rom. 5: 10).” “So justifying grace is not merely a
making-present of the Christ crucified “for us”; it is even more a making-present of the
risen and coming Christ. Faith is Easter jubilation, and the forgiveness of all guilt springs
from this joy… Because the raising of Christ shows this added value and surplus over
against his death, this jubilation of sinners initiates a process of exuberant intensification:
justification - sanctification - glorification” (Rom. 8: 30).3
Moltmann also expounds clearly the effects of the righteousness brought about by
Jesus. It entails all aspects of human life: the forgiveness of sins, the abolishment of
injustice in the world, and the defeat of the final enemy of unrighteousness, which is
death. In this sense, under righteousness, human beings and the world are set right, and
the general resurrection will be the completing part of the righteousness God will grant
humankind through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.4
1
Ibid., p. 186.
2
3
J. MOLTMANN, The Way of Jesus Christ, p.186; cf. Theology of Hope, p. 205-206.
4
172
We have seen a few aspects of righteousness through the merits of Jesus Christ:
First, the new justifying divine righteousness is not bound to the law but is gratuitously
granted. Second, it is not limited to the Jews, but now is open to all people; it is universal.
Third, this righteousness is founded on both the death and resurrection of Jesus. Fourth,
the righteousness brought about by Jesus concerns not only the forgiveness of sins, but
also creates a new life in Christians.
2.1.5. Justification and regeneration

If Reformers like C. Zinzendorf considered justification as an event happening at
one moment, for Moltmann, it is a process of a lifetime.1 Moltmann does not distinguish
justification from regeneration. Regeneration through the Spirit is not a complementary
‘second grace’ following justifying faith, but it is the same reality of a new life, for “there
is no justification without the Spirit. Justifying faith is itself the experience that the love
of God has been poured out into our hearts ‘through the Holy Spirit (cf. Rom. 5: 5).”2
Moltmann criticized the justification theology of Luther and the Reformers for
identifying justification with atonement on account of the death of Jesus. For him,
justification should include the aspect of the presence of Jesus Christ in the justified
believers. Not only the death of Jesus Christ renders me justified, but also Jesus Christ
who is alive lives in me and makes me righteous. Does Jesus Christ not renew me every
day? He also questions Melanchthon’s forensic doctrine of justification. For Moltmann,
“justification and rebirth happen at the same time: “Justification is conferred on me; but I
1
Along the same lines as Moltmann, Luther recognized the necessity of renewal in human beings, for he
has to fight against sin everyday. Furthermore, renewal entails a twofold surrender: a renewed surrender in
faith to God’s merciful judgment and a renewed surrender to God’s working in one in view of causing the
death of one’s old man, prompting the resurrection of the new man (cf. P. ALTHAUS, The Theology of
Martin Luther, p. 239f). According to Althaus, for Luther it is important to affirm that neither faith nor
‘work’ cause and guarantee one’s salvation. However, righteousness causes man to have an inner necessity
for works, which is essential for him to know that he has faith. Works, in this sense, are the sign of the
presence of a genuine faith in man. Without works, one may claim that he has faith, but that is not genuine.
In this sense, Luther does not disagree with James who teaches: “So also faith of itself, if it does not have
works, is dead” (James. 2: 17). “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was
completed by the works” (James. 2: 22). “Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will
demonstrate my faith to you from my work” (James. 2: 18). Works are the sign of the presence of a living
faith. On the contrary, if a person does not have good works, there is no living faith in him (cf. P.
ALTHAUS, The Theology of Martin Luther, p. 245-249). Althaus concludes: Luther “says that good works,
the ‘works of grace,’ are necessary. At the same time, he refuses to characterize them as necessary for
salvation or for justification. They are necessary as a witness of faith” (P. ALTHAUS, The Theology of
Martin Luther, p. 249).
2
173
experience my rebirth as manifestly and unmistakably my own - as uniquely so as my

birth. Justification puts me in a new relationship to God, but regeneration or rebirth
changes my inner substance, provides a new me in myself, with my attitude to life and
my conduct.”1 It is worth pointing out that Luther and Moltmann consent on the
simultaneitas of justification and sanctification, as opposed to the Reformers, among
them Count Zinzendorf, who considered that justification happens to the individual at one
particular moment and remains with him thenceforth.2
Moltmann also agrees with J. Wesley: “For Wesley, sin is a sickness that requires
healing rather than a breach of law requiring atonement. He therefore interprets the
justification of the sinner with the concepts of regeneration or rebirth rather than with
those of judgment…Wesley was therefore less interested than Luther in the permanent
justification of the sinner, and more interested than Luther in the process of the sinner’s
religious and moral renewal.”3 Moltmann agrees with Wesley in identifying five stages of
sanctification: a) the first grace of God that awakens man’s natural conscience and will,
b) the grace of justification, c) man’s experience of objective justification and of
subjective regeneration, d) the gradual sanctification the believer’s lifetime, e) finally, the
state of Christian perfection.4 Though sanctification can be considered as the immediate
consequence of justification, believers experience both at the same time. What is Jesus
Christ’s place in these five stages? If we combine the five stages with the four steps in the
sequence of Christian life: faith, justification, love and good works, we can say that the
first event is having faith in Jesus. It is Jesus who awakes man’s natural conscience and
will; it is Jesus who brings man to his Father, who justifies man on account of his Son. Of
course faith is the first gift of God. Justification, therefore, is the second event; and then
is followed by the experience of being justified. This experience pushes the justified
Christian to share love with others.
Considering salvation as an event for the whole universe, it is appropriate to
consider that once a person is justified, his life is not only for himself, but also for the
whole world. He becomes the light of the world and the salt of the earth. But if “salt itself
1
Ibidem.
2
Cf. ibid., p. 167-171.
3
Ibid., p. 164.
4
Cf. ibid., p.165.
174
loses its taste, with what can its flavor be restored? It is fit neither for the soil nor for the
manure pile; it is thrown out” (Lk. 14: 34-35;Mc. 9: 50; Mt. 5: 13). It means that a
justified person becomes flavor for the world. He is open to the world: “Through the
justification of sinners, the gospel brings men and women who are closed into themselves
to the open love of God. Through rebirth from the Spirit, it brings people who have been
subject to death into touch with the eternal source of life, putting them in the closer
framework of the rebirth of the human community and against the wider horizon of the
rebirth of the cosmos.”1
Moltmann disagrees with Bultmann, who reduces the effect of righteousness to
the restoration of the original condition.2 According to Moltmann, righteousness is not a
restoration of creation as it originally was, but it is making it a totally new being: “‘The
resurrection of Christ has an added value over and above the significance of his death,
then it promises a ‘new creation’ which is more than ‘the first creation’ (Rev. 21:4: ‘For
the first… has passed away’). Christ’s resurrection does not say: restitutio in integrum
through reconciliation. It says: reconciliation in order that the world may be transformed
and newly created.”3 As a new creation, with Jesus dwelling in him, a Christian can have
a new harmony with God and with others; his attitude and conduct will accord with his
new being. A process of transformation and renewal takes place in him daily.
2.1.6. Universal justification4

Justification does not mean that God forgives human beings, as individuals, their
sins by proclaiming that they are considered righteous on account of having faith in
Jesus, but rather has a universal implication. Moltmann bases his theology of the
universal justification on St. Paul’s theology. The presupposition of St. Paul is that since
sin causes universal effect, so the justifying grace of Christ is universal. ‘For there is no
distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory they should have with God’
(Rom.3:22-23), so God ‘will justify the Jews on the ground of their faith, and the Gentiles
1
2
Cf. ibid., p. 185. Moltmann refers to R. BULTMANN, “Der Begriff der Offenbarung im Neuen Testament”
in Glauben und Verstehen III, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1960, p. 26 and 29.
3
J. MOLTMANN, The Way of Jesus Christ, p. 188-189.
4
‘Universal justification’ in this section is under consideration as only of the community of humankind as a
whole. Of course, Moltmann also considers justification of the whole cosmos; this subject will be studied in
the section of ecology.
175
through their faith’ (Rom. 3:30). “The godless nature and unrighteousness of human
being’… have wounded his (God’s) love for the humanity he has created. The saving and
the justifying gospel is therefore directed with equal universality to all sinners, and calls
them all to faith, for they are justified by grace as a gift through the redemption which is
in Jesus Christ.”1 The most evident passage of St. Paul’s teaching about the universal
righteousness through Christ is Rom. 5: 15: “Just as through one transgression
condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all.”
The reason for seeing salvation and justification as social and universal events is
because “every created being belongs to a social context shared with other beings, sin
always destroys life in the social sense too.”2 Furthermore, if sin has a social impact, so
the impact of Jesus and his history affect the whole universe.3 “If belief in the
universality of deliverance through Christ is the presupposition for an awareness of sin,
then functionally, the doctrine of sin belongs strictly within the therapeutic circle which
embraces knowledge of Christ, knowledge of our own misery, and the new life in faith…
But this therapeutic circle of faith revolves round the justice and righteousness of God
which justifies and sets things to rights, and which has become manifest in Christ. It is
therefore related to the practical and specific personal and social conflicts of people who
have never received justice, and people who are themselves unjust.”4 Here the
Christological foundation is emphasized.
The effect of the justification brought by Jesus touches all aspects of life, society
and the world. Because all these dimensions affect every justified individual, they need to
be changed and justified: “If there is a divine liberation from the universal power of sin
through the energy of the creative Spirit which works for righteousness, this legitimates
the liberations from economic injustice, political oppression, cultural alienation and
personal discouragement.”5 Here Moltmann wants to say that the system of economic
injustice, political oppression and cultural alienation has a universal and social impact
that needs to be tackled by human society together. Indeed, if saving righteousness has a
1
2
3
Cf. Rom. 5: 18-19; G. O’COLLINS, Christology, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 296-305;
W. KASPER, Jesus The Christ, p. 154-159.
4
5
Ibidem.
176
universal effect, then those who are justified also need to erase all those universal aspects
that cause negative effects. God justifies human beings both as individuals and
community, who, after receiving justification, cannot sit idly by an unjust world.
Therefore, they feel stimulated to involvement in the world in order to leave it in better
condition: “The person whom God has justified protests against the injustice in this
world. The person in whose heart God has put peace can no longer come to terms with
the discord in the world, but will resist it and hope for peace on earth.”1
However, Moltmann also points out the weakness of the universal concept of sin
underlined by the Pauline and Protestant doctrine of justification. According to
Moltmann, the universal concept may cause people to demote the specific and practical
aspects of guilt. People may focus on the conflict between classes or groups and forget
the individual’s sins and offenses. At the same time, Moltmann also acknowledges that
there is a further advantage, for if sin is considered universal, everyone feels responsible
for the problem in society, and consequently he/she will be in solidarity with others who
are also sinners and the judgment among people against one another will be diminished.2
Furthermore, for Moltmann, justification is claimed for both individuals and the
whole creation. As was said above, “justification is not a unique event, pin-pointed to a
certain moment in time. It is a process which begins in the individual heart through faith,
and leads to the just new world. This process begins with the forgiveness of sins and ends
with the wiping away of all tears.”3 In other words, although sins and righteousness have
a universal effect, the process of justification always requires the engagement of
individuals, without ignoring collective involvement.
2.1.7. Eschatological aspects of justification

Since the Reformers’ doctrine of justification has a character of past and present,
Moltmann recommends an extension into the future. Justification also means an
eschatological reality. In fact, if we accept the simultaneity of justification, regeneration,
and renovation of Moltmann, and the simultaneitas of righteousness and sinfulness of
Luther, we have to look for the final goal of justification, which is an eschatological
1
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Spirit of Life, p. 125-127.
3
177
event. In this sense, Moltmann proposes an expansion of the Reformation’s doctrine of

justification: 1) Justification must not only show the saving significance of the death but
also of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 2) Justification must entail pneumatological
involvement in the life of justified believers, i.e. their experience of the Spirit. 3) It must
have an eschatological orientation. In this sense, it implies the regeneration and renewal
of all creatures, which will obtain their share of glorification with Jesus Christ only at his
triumphant return.1 Justification gives reason of hope to those who have faith in Jesus
Christ, who will testify to his Father about their faithful, justified life; and the Father,
who from the beginning has proclaimed them justified, will glorify them.
Therefore, the justification of Christians will culminate in the general resurrection
and universal judgment. All other effects God the Father grants to humankind and the
world through the risen Jesus Christ, are antecedent to the resurrection and the final
judgment. Although human beings enjoy the fruit of justification as expressed now in this
temporal world, they look forwards to the final judgment, which is the most important
event of the human community (cf. Mt. 25: 31-46). Because resurrection and judgment
belong to human life, they are social and communal events, for human life is not only
private but also social. In other words, justification has characteristics not only of privacy
and individuality but also publicness and community. Judgment has public and
communal characteristics in that it relates to the event of the individual’s death and also
to the general resurrection and final judgment; therefore it is eschatological.
The resurrection of the dead is a sign of God’s righteousness: “God is righteous.
His righteousness will conquer. As the righteousness of God, it cannot be limited even by
death. So God will summon both living and dead before his judgment seat. But that is
only possible if he has raised the dead beforehand, so that they can identify themselves
with the deeds and omissions of their earthly life at his judgment.”2 Moltmann relies on
Daniel 12 to relate the general resurrection and the final judgment to the righteousness of
God. Because God is righteous he will judge the just and the unjust. There will be a
general resurrection and the final judgment, “so that the righteousness of God can assign
some to eternal life and others to eternal shame and damnation. Those here who are
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Spirit of Life, p. 149.
2
178
righteous according to the law of the divine covenant gain eternal life. The lawless and
the lawbreakers come to eternal damnation.”1
Furthermore, if justification means being in just condition, it entails regeneration
and renewal, which takes a whole life, until the coming of Christ, who will pronounce the
final judgment. “If we expect the righteousness of God to set man right with himself,
with his fellows and with the whole of creation, then it can become the summary
expression for a universal, all-inclusive eschatology which expects from the future of
righteousness a new being to a new order for the existing world, but provides creation as
a whole with a new ground of existence and a new right to life.”2 In other words, human
beings and all other creatures do not achieve their goal at present but in the future. They
are only on their way to their final fulfillment, which requires daily contribution,
amounting to perfection: “The divine righteousness which is latent in the event of Christ
has an inner trend towards a totality of new being. The man who is justified follows this
trend in bodily obedience. His struggle for obedience and his suffering under the
godlessness of the world have their goal in the future of the righteousness of the whole.”3
2.2. A new life of hope in anticipation of the resurrection

St. Paul says: “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose, so too will God, through
Jesus, bring with him those who have fallen asleep” (I Thess. 3: 14). The human
resurrection is the ultimate object of Christian hope. Why does man have this hope?
Should he hope for something that does not relate to any analogical event, for example
hope of avoiding death or hoping to be able to fly? If man hopes for resurrection, there
must be a basis for his hope. The basis of this hope is the promise of the risen Christ and
trust in the power of God: “For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the
Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him on the last day” (John
6: 40, 54; cf. Rom. 10: 9). Can he raise others if he himself is not raised from the dead?
The fact is that Christians believe in the risen Jesus Christ and in his promise. That is why
1
Ibid., p. 179. The fact that God is righteous is also manifested when He forgives men’s sins, as St. Paul
says: “…to prove His righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins… that he might be righteous and
justify the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3: 26-26). Luther explains this Pauline passage: “He forgave
them their sins through His forbearance, that is, in view of the promised atonement to be made by Christ…
His gracious remission of sins proves Him to be the God who is just and who alone has power to justify”
(M. LUTHER, Commentary on Romans, p. 79).
2
3
Ibid., p. 207.
179
they believe that resurrection will happen to them and they hope for this event to take
place. “If Christ has been raised from the dead, then he takes on proleptic and
representative significance for all the dead. He is… the first to rise from the dead (Acts
26: 23)… The process of the resurrection of the dead has begun in him, is continued in
‘the Spirit, the giver of life’, and will be completed in the raising of those who are his,
and of all the dead.”1
Christian hope in the resurrection has great consequence for the life of Christians
because resurrection opposes death. Hence death loses power over Christian life and
yields to the power of the resurrection. In this sense, those who have a new life in the
risen Lord will lead a life in view of the resurrection.
2.2.1. Hope in the resurrection

In the section ‘Jesus rises from the dead’ of part I of this research, I treated the
subject of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, exploring it from the viewpoints of historical
criticism and form criticism. The themes of how his disciples, men and women, came to
acknowledge that Jesus indeed was raised from the dead, and how the first Christians
could accept the kerigma of these disciples, were also discussed.
In this section, I will study four areas: the reasons for our belief in the
resurrection, the significance of the resurrection of Jesus Christ for us, what we expect in
our resurrection, and how we should live our life with belief in the resurrection. These
argumentations are the new ways of talking about the resurrection in modern times that
Moltmann proposes.2
2.2.1.1. The credibility of God

Mary Magdalene (cf. John 20:1-18), other women (cf. Lk. 24:1-12), Jesus’
disciples and the first Christians certainly recalled what Jesus had told them before his
death: “the Son of Man is to be handed over to men and they will kill him, and three days
after his death he will rise” (Mk. 9:31; Mt. 17: 22-23). They also recalled God’s
eschatological promises of raising the dead: “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the
earth shall awake; some shall live for ever, others shall be an everlasting horror and
1
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Resurrection as Hope”, p. 129 and 135; The Way of Jesus Christ, p. 213.
180
disgrace”(Daniel 12:2).1 For them, the God in whom they believed is the God of promise
and resurrection. They believed that God raised Jesus from the dead and will raise all
those who believe in him. Jesus’ rising from the dead is ‘the first fruit of those who have
fallen asleep’ (I Cor. 15: 20). Jesus confirmed that there is resurrection (cf. Mt. 22:23-32)
and promised to grant everlasting life to those who believe in him (cf. John 6: 40). Their
belief in the promise of God the Father, in the promise of Jesus, and in the actual raising
of Jesus from the dead prompted them to hope for their own resurrection.2 In this sense,
Moltmann says: “But Christian eschatology expounded and expressed the Easter
experiences in recalling and taking up the earlier promises and, in regard to Jesus himself,
in recalling and taking up what had earlier been promised and proclaimed… It is related
in content to the person of Jesus of Nazareth and the event of his raising, and speaks of
the future for which the ground is laid in this person and this event.”3
The friends and disciples of Jesus, as well as other people who had listened to
Jesus, were astonished that Jesus was unjustly condemned to death. Now they believed
that a just God raised him up. They recalled that Jesus’ acts and teachings had nothing
wrong. Therefore, they were convinced that God’s act of raising Jesus was an act of
reopening the trial of Jesus. His trial was unjust when it was conducted and he was
judged by the wicked, but now it is reopened and he receives justice. “In this context, the
raising of Jesus means the justification of Jesus as the Christ of God, [it] endorses Jesus’
proclamation of the compassionate justice of God, which sets everything to rights; and
the double event of his surrender to death and his raising becomes the revelation of the
messianic righteousness of God - which is to say his justifying righteousness.”4
For these first Christians, the existential experiences of Easter, including the
Easter appearances5 and their interpretation, supported their belief and hope in the
resurrection. The promise of God in the Old Testament has been fulfilled in the
resurrection of Jesus; and at the same time, the event of Jesus has become the proof of the
promise of Jesus and a new promise of God the Father that he will raise all those who
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Coming God, p. 67-68; Ez. 37: 12-14, Job. 14:14, Ps. 88:10.
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Way of Jesus, p. 215-221.
3
J. MOLTMANN, Theology of Hope, p. 191,192; cf. The Way of Jesus Christ, p. 213.
4
Ibid., p. 224.
5
The Easter appearances and the fact of the recognition of Jesus Christ together with the identification of
him as the crucified Jesus are the most important elements in the post-Easter faith of the disciples. This
topic was already studied in the section ‘Jesus rises from the dead’.
181
believe in his Son. “Paul links the traditional Abrahamitic promises with the promise of
life and obviously understands ‘life’ no longer in the context of possessing the land,
being fruitful and multiplying, but as ‘quickening of the dead’ (Rom. 4:15, 17). As in
Judaism, so also he, too, is certain that God keeps his promises. Yet the ground of this
assurance is new: because God has the power to quicken the dead and call into being
things that are not, therefore the fulfillment of his promise is possible, and because he has
raised Christ from the dead, therefore the fulfillment of his promise is certain.”1
The first Christians also knew that the resurrection that they had hoped for would
be granted gratuitously. They did not rely on their obedience or faithfulness in order to
have a right to put their hope in God, but on the generosity and faithfulness of God. What
God required of people for their resurrection consists of only having faith in God. This is
the same promise, but with a new condition, which is no condition: “This is a new
promise of life, for it is no longer attached to the condition of a possible repentance, but
promises a creative act of Yahweh upon his people beyond the bounds of the temporal
and the possible. It therefore acquires the form of a promise that has no conditions and no
presuppositions, a promise of life from the dead on the ground of a creative act of
Yahweh ex nihilo.” 2
The expectation of the Israelites and the first Christians who still retained their
Jewish heritage, other than having the anthropological implication which is the raising of
the flesh, and the soteriological implication which is being saved from death, also
contains a theological implication which is expecting to see the righteousness of God.
They expected the day of the resurrection in order to be judged and proclaimed as the
righteous. Because they had faith and hope in God, they were not afraid of, but expected
and looked forwards to, this judgment, the day that God will show his righteousness
when he judges.3
As indicated above, there is a close relationship between resurrection and
judgment. If there is a hope for and looking forwards to the resurrection, then the
judgment was also expected. Christians were not afraid of judgment. It is not right that
the joy of Easter jubilation should be subdued by Christian theology and art, which
1
2
Ibid., p. 209.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Way of Jesus Christ, p. 224; The Coming God, p. 68.
182
overstate the fear of final judgment. Moltmann recapitulates: “The Christian resurrection
hope which is grounded on the remembrance of Christ’s sufferings and resurrection is
therefore an unequivocally ‘joyful hope’ for the resurrection and the life of the world to
come. It is not a fearful expectation of a Last Judgment whose outcome for the human
beings concerned is uncertain.”1
2.2.1.2. The significance of Jesus Christ’s resurrection for men

Although the resurrection of Jesus Christ is historically improvable and
unascertainable2, Christian faith is based on Jesus’ resurrection, which contains
significances for us. What are these significances?
2.2.1.2.1. The righteousness of God and the theodicy questions

In the Old Testament, the expectation of the resurrection arose due to both the
theodicy questions and the righteousness of God. Firstly, in terms of the general
resurrection, people asked: When will God’s righteousness triumph over this world of
evil and pain? In terms of the individual resurrection, people asked: When will God do
justice to me by raising me up and judging me accordingly?3 Secondly, there is a close
relationship between justice for man and the righteousness of God. God shows his
righteousness when he judges justly.4
If, in the Old Testament, the focus was mainly on the well being of the future of
people and the world, in the New Testament, the focus was more on God. People
expected God to show his righteousness. God destroys death when he raises the dead (cf.
Gal. 5: 5; Rom. 1: 16; 11: 5). The expectation of the resurrection in the New Testament
(cf. I Cor. 15) also resulted from the question of theodicy, i.e. the “faith in God’s divinity
and in the victory of his righteousness.”5 Therefore, “the resurrection hope for individual
was part of the universal hope for God and the coming of his creation in righteousness, in
which the theodicy question would be answered.”6
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Way of Jesus Christ, p. 224-225.
2
Cf. ibid., p. 243; Theology of Hope, p. 179; “Resurrection as Hope”, p. 136.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Coming of God, p. 67; “Resurrection as Hope”, p.131.
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Coming of God, p. 68; The Crucified God, p. 178.
5
J. MOLTMANN, “Resurrection as Hope”, p. 132
6
Ibidem.
183
The good Lord opposes the suffering and anxiety of human beings. The ultimate
threat to human beings is death, which men and women fear in its unavoidableness. But
they hope in the almighty God who alone can break the chain of death. The resurrection
of Jesus Christ is the proof that God plans to do this for those who have trust in him:
“The raising of Christ is not merely a consolation to him in a life that is full of distress
and doomed to die, but it is also God’s contradiction of suffering and death, of
humiliation and offence, and of the wickedness of evil. Hope finds in Christ not only a
consolation in suffering, but also the protest of the divine promise against suffering.”1
“Jesus’ resurrection signifies a new factor which opens towards the future our
world locked up in guilt and death.”2 In fact, the expectation of the resurrection for us
today does not evade the question of theodicy. However, if in the Old Testament people
expected God to erase the suffering of the world on the day of resurrection and raise up
the dead to judge them justly, we today expect that the suffering of the world be
alleviated and the power of death destroyed even now.3 In other words, the resurrection
hope does not only mean that we put our hope in our own resurrection in the future, but
also means an anticipation of the future, which inspires us to join with Jesus Christ to
mediate life and freedom for “those who live in darkness and in the midst of death.”4
2.2.1.2.2. Human being and his history

The teaching of the primitive Church on the resurrection remained oriented
toward the theodicy question, i.e. the expectation of a justitia distributiva for the just and
the unjust accordingly. However, in this view of the righteousness of God and man, the
resurrection necessarily entails the anthropological aspect, i.e. the reunion of soul and
body. “From the juridical logic of judgment, responsibility and self-identification, the
Fathers [of the Church] drew conclusion of the resurrection of the dead and from this
resurrection in turn the anthropological unity of man - body and soul.”5 In order to give a
total account of his earthly life and be justly judged, each human being at the resurrection
has to identify himself with who he was during his earthly life; therefore, there need be a
1
2
J. MOLTMANN, “Resurrection as Hope”, p. 138.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Resurrection: The Ground, Power and Goal of our Hope”, p. 85-86
4
5
Ibid., p. 134.
184
reunion of body and soul. This is the concept of the purpose of the reunion of the body
and the soul according to the early Christian thought. According to Moltmann, today, we
still upheld this concept of human being as ‘his whole history’. However, it is not a
‘record of history’ in order to be judged and condemned, but it is ‘a book of life’ that can
help us recall a loving and healing life, which will be put to right.1
The resurrection means transforming the whole person with his history. This risen
person will not have to face death again. “Like the raising of the dead Christ by God
through his life-giving Spirit, the resurrection of the dead is also expected as a physical
happening touching the whole person, namely as a ‘giving life to mortal bodies’ (cf.
Rom. 8:11).2
2.2.1.2.3. Unity of humanity and all creations

Another significance of the general resurrection is that of the future of Jesus
Christ and his kingdom as well as the future of God. At the resurrection, Jesus will gather
all into his kingdom and hand it over to his Father. It was the hope for both God and man.
St. Paul also considered the resurrection as “a new creation of God, a creation which is
good and no longer equivocal.”3
The history of Christ is always a part of the history of the people of Israel who
recollect his story, and also of those who are homeless and suffer. “Therefore the
resurrection of Christ, too, is no individual resurrection. He is raised as the Christ of
Israel, the head of the Church and the pioneer of a new humanity, as the ‘new Adam’ and
not least as the ‘firstborn of all creation’ (cf. Co1. 1: 15).”4 Jesus’ resurrection, therefore,
is not a private event, but rather an event that changes the course of history of each
individual person as well as of the whole human community.
According to Moltmann, the resurrection of Jesus is an apocalyptic happening.
“The risen Christ lives in the time of the coming world of the new creation in justice and
righteousness…[It is] the beginning of the new creation of the world.”5 The cosmic effect
is included in the result of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. “There is no resurrection of
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Coming God, p 73.
2
Cf. ibid., p. 69.
3
4
J. MOLTMANN, “Resurrection: The Ground, Power and Goal of our Hope”, p. 85; cf. The Way of Jesus
Christ, p. 221, 223.
5
Ibid., p. 214.
185
the dead without the new earth in which death will be no more. The very expression ‘the
resurrection of the flesh’ (resurrectio carnis) reaches out beyond the human dead…[It]
does not just mean human beings in their physical constitutions; it means animals too -
that is, ‘all the living’.”1 Moltmann, recognizing that although the Fathers of the Church
reserved resurrection to human beings alone, reaffirms his statement that resurrection
comprises ‘the resurrection of all the living’, i.e. including animals.2 I think the most
innovative theory of Moltmann regarding the meaning of the resurrection is the cosmic
dimension. He says explicitly: “Hope for the resurrection of the dead is therefore only the
beginning of a hope for a cosmic new creation of all things and conditions. It is not
exhausted by personal eschatology. On the contrary, every personal eschatology that
begins with this hope is constrained to press forward in ever-widening circles to cosmic
eschatology.”3
2.2.1.2.4. Faith in the resurrection

As the New Testament indicates, the crucified one chose to appear to only the
disciples (men and women), not to all people. If we cannot draw a conclusion about the
historical event of Jesus Christ’s resurrection historico-critically, we have no doubt that
there is something that “happened between the dead Jesus and the disciples which
generated the faith of the disciples.”4 If the event of Jesus’ resurrection is not historically
ascertainable, it “is in itself an eschatological novum. It is the foundation of the Christian
kerigma and the Christian hope, for it qualifies the historical and crucified Jesus as the
eschatological person, in whom the future of God is dawning.”5
However, according to Moltmann, we also can say that “the resurrection of Jesus
is not historically verifiable ‘as yet’… It is subject to eschatological verification. This
means that something has happened which in its significance and meaning is not
universally visible ‘as yet’. Historical proof and certainty in this instance mean an
anticipation of the end of history.”6 From this statement, we can draw a meaning from
Jesus’ resurrection: “If Christian hope understands the resurrection of the crucified one as
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Coming of God, p. 69-70.
2
Ibid., p. 70.
3
Ibidem.
4
5
Ibid., p. 136-137.
6
Ibid., p. 137.
186
the touchtone of its expectation, in the contemplation thereof it is reminded of the

future.”1 “Jesus himself has been translated into the future of the new. He represents this
future and at the same time mediates it.”2
The belief in the resurrection of Jesus entails faith in us. Without faith, we cannot
have hope in the resurrection because the event of Jesus’ resurrection is not provable. As
the accounts in the New Testament tell how the disciples, men and women, came to
acknowledge the crucified One, not because they could recognize him at once in the
appearances. On the contrary, at first, they doubted (cf. Jn. 20: 24-29). It is Jesus Christ
who chose whom to appear to; “it is the Christ who appears who first calls on them to
‘believe’ (cf. Mk. 16:14; Jn. 20:27).”3 “The early Christian faith in the resurrection was
not based solely on Christ’s appearances. It was just as strongly motivated, at the very
least, by the experience of God’s Spirit. Paul therefore calls this Spirit ‘the Spirit’ or
‘power’ of the resurrection.”4 Therefore, for us today, because, we are not in a better
situation than that of the disciples of Jesus Christ, we need to rely on faith, which is the
gift of God for us when we accept the love of God. “The fulfillment of the resurrection
hope must now be joined with the expectation of the presence of the God who announce
himself in Word and Spirit…The resurrection hope can fulfill itself only in the future of
God in which God is really God and will be ‘all in all’ (I Cor. 15:28).”5
2.2.1.3. The nature of the resurrection

What will happen to us, particularly to our bodies, at the resurrection? A human
being consists of soul and body. The Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed mentions the
resurrection of the dead, while the Apostles’ Creed talks about the resurrection of the
body. The nature of the resurrection in these credo always raises questions. Whereas
Greek philosophical dualism considered the body as less important than the soul,
Christian theology today regards the body and soul as two inseparable dimensions of a
human being. If we consider that the body is mortal and loses life at the moment of death,
1
Ibidem.
2
Ibid., p. 146; cf. The Way of Jesus Christ, p. 214.
3
J. MOLTMANN, “Resurrection: The Ground, Power and Goal of our Hope”, p. 84-85; cf. The Coming of
God, p. 69;
4
5
187
then the resurrection is the restitution of its life.1 But resurrection is more than the
restitution of life to dead bodies.
Moltmann says that “If there is no material resurrection of the body there is no
personal resurrection of the dead either. If there is a personal resurrection of the dead,
there is a material resurrection of the body too.”2 According to Moltmann resurrection of
the dead is not a resurrection of only the soul. The eternal life after the resurrection has to
consist of both body and soul. “The resurrection of the body is the ‘nature’ side of the
‘personhood’ conception about the resurrection of the dead. This conception for its part is
based on the eschatological raising through which God will create all things new, and
perfect them.”3 If resurrection is the raising of the body, what are the differences in the
two stages of the same body, i.e. before death and after resurrection, and which identity
in the first stage can be found in the second?
There is something immortal in the flesh that can provide energy for the
regeneration of the flesh as described in the image of the grain of wheat which dies and
grows into the plant. At the resurrection of the dead, the grain, which “is sown
corruptible, is raised incorruptible” (I Cor. 15, 44). As a grain, when it dies it provides
energy to the plant, so the body will provide energy for the resurrection. In this sense,
there is always bodily identity after death, so that each body can be identified at the
resurrection. There must be an immanent power in the flesh, which will raise the flesh on
the day of resurrection. In other words, “those whom God raises at the end of time must
rise themselves.”4 According to Moltmann, God will remember each one by name and
recognize him/her by his/her relationship with him. This mutual relationship is the power
that will raise a person up.5
1
‘Restitution’ of life means restoring to life the physical flesh, which was dead, although this flesh is
transformed and will not be exactly the same as that before death.
2
J. MOLTMANN, The Way of Jesus, p. 260; see also p. 265-266.
3
Ibid., p. 261
4
Ibidem.
5
Cf. Ibid., p. 261-263. What is this power in the flesh that provides the energy for the resurrection?
Moltmann answers that this power cannot be destroyed by death, and it “is to be found in the enduring
somatic identity in death, without which a ‘raising of the dead’ would be inconceivable. The dead must still
be identifiable for God even if they decay. God remembers them. He knows their names”(J. MOLTMANN,
The Way of Jesus Christ, p. 261).
188
What are changed at the resurrection are mortality, sins, sufferings and grief; they
will no longer exist.1 All other characteristics of bodily existence, such as human needs;
human dependence on food, air and climate; human sexuality, etc. are not abolished. If all
these human elements are excluded at the resurrection, then we can no longer speak of
the resurrection of the body. Indeed, “hope in ‘the resurrection of the body’ permits no
disdain and debasement of bodily life and sensory experiences; it affirms them
profoundly, and gives greatest honor to the flesh.”2
The reasons for the continuing existence of these human aspects are three: 1) Men
and women will continue to live as human community; therefore, they need human
bodies; 2) The restitution of life to the body will happen at the resurrection as revelation
indicates (Mt. 22, 23-33) and in accordance with the nature of human being. Man by
nature is love. But there is no love and life if there is no body. Love and life are restored
with the restoration of the body.3 3) Since at the creation God created male and female,
the resurrection (the second creation) cannot do away with men and women as male and
female. At the resurrection there will be a transformation of the body: ‘This perishable
nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality’ (I
Cor. 15:35).4 Transformation and conservation of the body will take place at the
resurrection. Discontinuity and continuity can coexist. According to Moltmann,
“historical identity and eschatological transformation do not exclude one another, but are
two sides of the one, single transition to eternal life.”5
What elements does a person consist of for Moltmann? If I am asked who I am,
the answer is not that I am what as you see me as now. In other words, at the resurrection,
a person is restored to everything he had been all his life. Moltmann says that a person
consists of his whole history, which entails a whole series of temporal configurations.
What I am now is all that I have been since being a fertilized ovum, my embryo, my
fetus, my childhood, my adolescent, my adulthood, my aging man/woman, my sickness,
my dying, to the moment of my death. At the resurrection, my whole being with my
existential history will be restored to me, in such a way that I can recognize myself
1
Cf. ibid., p. 262.
2
3
Cf. ibid., p.66.
4
Cf. ibid., p 75.
5
189
through remembering my whole life history. The raising of the body does not mean only
a restoring the flesh to life, but also means transforming the whole person. The same
mortal body, with its whole history, will be raised up and transformed into an immortal
body. This risen person will not have to face death again.1 Therefore, hope in the
resurrection is not a hope for the hour of death, but hope in all moments of life from
conception to death. Moltmann is a ‘pro-life’ person. He considers that fertilized ovum,
embryo and fetus, all have the same human dignity as a young or dying person.2 In this
context, he says: “Love for life and reverence for life must be newly awaken, so that they
may confront the growing cynicism that is widespread in the countries of the West. The
protection of the life of the weak, the protection of the life of our fellow creatures, and
the protection of the future of the life we share: these things must be reinforced, in order
to counter the brutal structures of death.”3
St. Paul says that in the Christian community, members are parts of one body (cf.
I Cor. 12:12). In this sense, when talking about the resurrection of the body, the social
dimension is involved. Indeed, “The bodily existence of human beings always means a
social existence among other things, for its sensuous quality is also its capacity for
communication.”4 Therefore, at the resurrection God will raise the community of people,
which will be transformed, and in which individuals will not be ‘debased into
collectivism’, but have dignity as individual humans and children of God. They will live
in peace and love with one another, and they will continue to communicate with one
another. Moltmann goes on to say: “The horizon of ‘the resurrection of the body’ spans
not merely the bodylines of the individual person but sociality too. It is the community
between human beings that will be raised and transfigured in the light of God, not the
isolated and private individual soul.”5
2.2.2. A life anticipating the resurrection

The effect of the resurrection is already taking place here and now, because hope
in the resurrection changes the lives of people. How do the lives of people change?
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Coming of God, p. 70-71.
2
3
J. MOLTMANN, God for a Secular Society, p. 69.
4
5
Ibidem.
190
Moltmann says that a person is not an eternal present, but consists of his whole history. If
the resurrection of Jesus Christ already affects the lives of people, the power of the
resurrection becomes part of the configuration of people: “But the Spirit of life is the
living Gestalt or configuration of life as a whole.1 In this Spirit, it is not just one part of
life (whether it be the soul or the ego) that is already immortal here and now; it is the
whole of this mortal life, because that life is interpenetrated by the eternal life.”2 Because
the effect of hope in the resurrection is already present in us as part of our configuration,
we cannot but live a life of joy and are called to liberate mankind from sins, sufferings,
grief, and all that is associated with death. This is the living hope for life and resurrection.
2.2.2.1. A life of joy, peace and thanksgiving

In the New Testament, there are passages where believers talked about their
experiences of the spirit of the resurrection, because of which they disregarded fear,
anxiety, persecution and death. Instead, they lived a life full of joy; they felt a rapturous
joy. Indeed, “with the resurrection of Christ out of the finality of his death -‘crucified,
dead and buried’ - into the breadth of eternal life, God throws open to us, too, that ‘broad
place where there is no more cramping’. We begin to love life with the love of God
which we experience in the Spirit.”3
With the experience of the spirit of the resurrection, Christians live in peace.4
They rest in the love God has poured in their heart (cf. Rom. 5:1,5). They have peace in
themselves because they have nothing against them; they live in harmony with God and
with others because love dominates their lives and because death, danger and persecution
have no more threat on them. These experiences of joy and peace in the spirit of the
resurrection remain in Christians and help them sustain their faith and hope in times of
1
It is not the idea of resurrection or the expectation of the resurrection, which is a not yet experienced
event, which becomes part of our idealism that cause us to change our lives now, but, according to
Moltmann, it is the spirit of life which originates in the resurrection of Jesus and our own resurrection, and
is part out our Gestalt - configuration, which stimulates us to conduct our lives accordingly.
2
J. MOLTMANN, The Coming God, p.71.
3
4
As Jesus, foreseeing his resurrection, did not escape but truly suffered torture and death, so do Christians.
When Moltmann says that Christians, when experiencing the spirit of the resurrection, live in peace, he
does not mean that they do not suffer. Yes, they do suffer, but what they suffer cannot compare to the joy
resulting from the experience of the spirit of the resurrection. They are ready to face suffering and death but
they discount them. In fact, hope in the resurrection does not help Christians escape suffering and death but
gives them strength to accept them.
191
turmoil and sadness.1 The life of Christians becomes the feast, and nothing can take them
away from this feast. “The participation of believers in the life of the risen Christ through
their hope, their new obedience and their festal ecstasy makes their own life a feast in a
similar way (the festal life of the risen Lord).”2
Because of believing in the resurrection of Jesus, Christians begin their new lives
full of hope, assured and promised by Jesus Christ who gives an example by living a life
in anticipation of his resurrection. Faith in the risen Christ has changed the lives of the
believers; they have started a new life with praise and thanksgiving to God; they share
their joys with other human beings and animals. They were living under the grip of death,
but now hear the voice of the promise of God through the mouth of Ezekiel: “Behold, I
will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live”(Ez. 37: 5). With this promise,
although the believers know that they will one day die physically, that they are facing
oppression, sickness, persecution, and all other types of suffering, which cause them to
die little by little everyday, but they firmly believe with the assurance of hope in God’s
promise that they will be raised from the dead, as Jesus already was, according to their
belief, and will live forever sharing glory with God the eternal. The expectation of what
surely will happen changes the lives of the believers; they cannot but live enthusiastic and
optimistic lives.3
Because they know that they will live forever, they are not afraid of death; they
are not afraid of suffering that leads them daily closer to death. But they have courage to
die little by little by dieing themselves for others: “In the hope for the final victory of life
over death, mortal life here can be fully loved and human beings can fully die. When the
fear of death disappears the fear of life disappears too.”4 They look at life from the
viewpoint of gratitude and love. “So loving and dying are not antitheses. They are
correspondences. For loving and dying are simply the immanent sides of the resurrection
and eternal life. Dying and death can be integrated into loving affirmation of life if there
is hope for the resurrection of the body.”5
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Source of Life, p. 31-32.
2
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p.113-114.
3
4
5
Ibid. p. 260-261.
192
Without the resurrection, our hope is in vain; we would become totally hopeless
(cf. I Cor 15:13-14). The resurrection is the reason and strength for our hope and our life.
In fact because of belief in the resurrection we lead our lives of suffering with a more
positive and optimistic perspective. The resurrection “is the reason for a full acceptance
of life here, and means that human beings can give themselves up to the whole of life
without any reservation. What is hoped for there, after death, as ‘the raising of the dead’,
means here the life lived in love.”1 “The Easter hope sets a Christian on the way of the
cross, which is none other than the way of actual, bodily obedience in everyday life” (cf.
Rom. 12:1). This new everyday life is expressed in love and joy which Christians both
give and receive.2
2.2.2.2. A witness to the life of the resurrection

Jesus was born into the world; he is one in the midst of other human beings. He is
not an individual independent from the rest of the world, but belongs to a community of
human beings. He is the member of the human community. He is not for himself, but
“becomes the legal property of his brethren according to the flesh.”3 With this reflection,
the meaning and purpose of the death and resurrection of Jesus are not only for himself
but also for the whole universe. In this context, Moltmann says: “His resurrection must
then be understood not as a mere return to life as such, but as a conquest of the deadliness
of death - as a conquest of god-forsakenness, as a conquest of judgment and of the curse,
as a beginning of the fulfillment of the promised life, and thus as a conquest of all that is
dead in death, as a negation of the negative (Hegel), as a negation of the negation of
God.”4
His resurrection is the first among the resurrection of each individual and the
human community as the whole. “If Christ has been raised from the dead, then he takes
1
2
If for J. Moltmann, the future resurrection determines our present life, for W. Kasper, the future
resurrection also belongs to love because love never fails (cf. I Cor. 13:8). Kasper, beyond agreeing with
Moltmann on the point that man’s hope in the reality of the future resurrection determines his present
Christian life, also emphasizes the present as the starting point. In other words, according to Kasper, a
Christian life is a concrete life which is lived not only for the future but also for the present; it not only
brings love to the world but also receives it from God and the world. It is this reciprocal love that turns man
to his future resurrection (Cf. W. KASPER, Jesus the Christ, p. 156). Although the two authors, Kasper and
Moltmann, seem to have diverse points of departure, both stress the present.
3
K. RAHNER, Theological Investigations, vol. II, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1963. p. 119.
4
193
on proleptic and representative significance for all the dead. He is ‘the leader of life’
(Acts 3: 15), ‘the first to rise from the dead’ (Acts 26: 23).”1 Indeed, the resurrection of
Jesus Christ is the source of the general resurrection. Furthermore, his resurrection has
overcome all causes of death and suffering even now in the lives of each individual
person as well as the community of human beings.2
We know that those who say that they do not believe in God and in the
resurrection also mourn for the loss of their loved ones and console those who mourn.
But for Christians, faith and hope in the resurrection give them even more reasons for
communion and solidarity among the living as well as between the living and the dead. In
fact, in anticipation of the resurrection, Christians have solidarity with those who suffer
the pain of loss; they know that resurrection will come but they still have first to suffer
death, which contradicts resurrection. Resurrection also motivates Christians to mourn
with those who mourn because the joy of anticipated resurrection makes them suffer with
those who suffer the loss; Christians mourn with those who mourn in order to console
and encourage them and share with them their belief in the resurrection, as St. Paul says:
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and
God of all encouragement, who encourages us in our every infliction, so that we may be
able to encourage those who are in any infliction with the encouragement with which we
ourselves are encouraged by God. For as Christ’s sufferings overflow to us, so through
Christ does our encouragement also overflow” (II Cor. 1:3-5).3
Although there are those who do not acknowledge Jesus’ resurrection, its effect is
always there, for, as said above, it is not a private event, but a communal event. However,
in order for an individual to benefit most from this event, he needs to acknowledge it and
assent to it. It means that he assents “to the tendency towards resurrection of the dead in
this event of the raising of the one. It means following the intention of God by entering
into the dialectic of suffering and dying in expectation of eternal life and of
resurrection.”4
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Coming God, p. 69; cf. Theology of Hope, p. 218.
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Resurrection: The Ground, Power and Goal of our Hope”, p. 83.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Coming God, p. 126-128.
4
194
For those who believe in Jesus’ resurrection, the Spirit who raised him from the
dead will dwell in them. The Spirit gives “the believer freedom, opens the way to the
future, to the eternal, to life. For freedom is nothing else than being open for the genuine
future, letting oneself be determined by the future.”1 The future determines the life of
believers in the sense that believers at present prepare themselves for this future. Once
their hope fixes on its future goal, they have no alternative but to live according to the
requirement of hope. “Resurrection and eternal life are the future that is promised, and
thereby make obedience possible in the body. In all our acts we are sowing in hope. So,
too, in love and obedience we are sowing for the future of the resurrection of the body. In
obedience, those who have been quickened by the Spirit are on the way towards the
quickening of the mortal body.”2 Resurrection is the final fruit which comes from the
seed already sown in present.
Furthermore, according to Moltmann, in order to understand the meaning of the
resurrection correctly, we need to grasp the essence of human beings from the
anthropological viewpoint. Man is a being of soul and body together; he does not have a
body. From this perspective, man will identify himself with bodily and social existence.
Also, from within this approach, man will be able to respect life and die for the lives of
others; and in so doing, he will be ready to confront suffering and death and accept them.
He will live a life of love and recognize that his life is fragile. “If rightly understood, it
(Christian resurrection hope) makes us ready to accept our mortal life and completely to
identify with it.”3 Therefore, what Jesus said becomes more understandable to us: “He
who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it” (Mark
8:35). In this sense, Moltmann says: “Man, however, does not find identity in this life, in
remaining isolated and in keeping his soul for himself, but only in going out of himself
and becoming personally, socially and politically incarnate… The resurrection hope
readies one for a life in love without reservation.”4
Because we know that we are body (and soul) and cannot lose it (what we are),
we anticipate resurrection and redemption, and in anticipating we are not afraid of losing
1
Ibid., p. 212.
2
Ibid. p. 212-213.
3
4
Ibid., p. 143
195
our lives. This is the motive that inspires Christians to already live now a life of joy in the
resurrection. Moltmann says: “In this acceptance of the body and this identification of our
self with the body we experience an anticipation of the final liberation and redemption of
the body. The body is being liberated from the repressions of fear, as it is liberated from
the law and the repressions of the law. It enters into the sphere of influence of the Gospel
and of the freedom of faith.”1
Jesus died for our sins and was raised for our resurrection and judgment.
Christians expect a favor judgment in which God will claim once for all that they are
justified, they are in harmony with God and with others. This harmony will not allow the
negative aspects of life that are associated with death, such as trial, suffering, oppression,
etc. In this context, resurrection has to win over death spiritual and physical. Resurrection
entails resurrection of the body, which already begins by dying. Dying is not the ultimate
stage of life but a prelude of the resurrection. The resurrection is already latent in the
dying. In this sense, Moltmann says: “It cannot mean only the reconciliation of man with
himself, but must also mean the redemption of his corporeality and of the world that has
become to him a world of objects. Hence through the promise and the Holy Spirit he
perceives not only his own reconciliation, but along with it at the same time also the un-
reconciled and unredeemed character of the body that is subject to death and of the world
that is subject to the powers of godlessness.”2
Since the Church is a community belonging to the universal human community, it
has to live under the effect of the resurrection of Jesus, which gives it joy.3 Christians no
longer mourn the death of Jesus, but celebrates with him his resurrection and the
resurrection they are looking forward to. Since they are celebrating the feast of joy, they
want to give witness to his resurrection by publicly acknowledging it: “The feast without
end puts its stamp on the personal life, on intervention for the liberation in the liberation
of the oppressed, the sad and the apathetic, and on the struggle for a happier world.”4 In
other words, the Church also needs to enter into the dialectic of suffering and dying. It
1
Ibid., p. 144.
2
3
This does not mean that Christians are not aware of the death of Jesus, but know that after death Jesus was
raised. One cannot separate Jesus’ resurrection from his death. Here, Moltmann wants to emphasize the
effect of the resurrection of Jesus on the life of Christians.
4
196
wants to suffer and die in itself and for the world in expectation of the general
resurrection. Dying for itself involves different aspects of the life and structure of the
Church, such as self-renewal, options for the poor and the oppressed, standing up against
the godless world, etc.
A new life of hope in those who are transformed by Jesus Christ is not yet a
perfect life for it is still a life of becoming. Man is always in a process of perfection. In
fact, man is always in the process of changing into who he is. What he will be is not
conclusive, but open to the future. He depends on the opportunities offered to him and on
how he responds to them. Jesus offers opportunities to all, whether Jews or gentiles,
because he wants to bring the Good News to all nations. All are called to the mission for
the future of Christ. The resurrection, as promised, is offered to all; the call to hope and
participation in the mission is universal. In anticipating the resurrection and accepting his
mission, man every day understands himself newly and sees a new horizon for his future
and the future of the world. Thus man is not yet established, but he is in the process of
constantly becoming who he is. In this sense, we can say that man does not become a
new man everyday, but he receives new possibilities everyday and, thus, realizes that he
can become what he is not yet. It is important to remark that what man will be is
dependent on new possibilities, which are contingent upon man’s ability and willingness
to open himself to the new horizon of the future. The new possibilities are always there,
but whether they are beneficial for mankind is a question. Therefore, in responding to the
call of Jesus, men need to interpret these new existential possibilities as new potentialities
for man’s future. The issue here is not about interpreting past phenomenon in view of the
present, but about recognizing, understanding and translating present and new
possibilities with a view to the future on the basis of Jesus’ resurrection, promise and
mission. With these new opportunities, man’s hope will be realized because he will
become a person with new life.1
3. HOPE IN RELATIONSHIPS
The Church is the Church of hope not only because it provides hope to its
members but also because, in view of serving the kingdom of God, it brings hope to the
1
197
world. Indeed, the Church does not and cannot live for itself but for the world. If the
Church lives just for itself as an island, it will not be a Church of hope. Being aware of
this fact, the Church enters into relationships with other religions and with the world.
When we say ‘the Church of hope’ we indicate that the Church enters both into a
vertical and horizontal relationship. It hopes in God and hopes for others. Does this hope
have any purpose? Yes, it has an intention in mind, a direction, a plan, and a project by
which the Church would deal with others.
Moltmann studies a triple relationship of the Church: with Israel, with other
religions, and with the world. “When the Church talks about hope, it is talking about the
future of Israel, for it proceeded from Israel, and only together with Israel can its hope be
fulfilled. When Christianity talks about hope, it is talking about the future of the nations,
the whole of mankind, because it exists for the nations and its hope is given for
mankind’s sake. When Christianity talks about hope, it is talking about the future of the
world, mankind and nature, in whose history it is, in practical terms, involved.”1
3.1. Hope for Israel

A theological study of the Church’s hope for Israel has to consider many aspects.
Firstly, the Church initially consisted of Jews, later of the Jews and Gentiles. Secondly
the people of Israel lost their land for 19 centuries, but now they have returned to their
homeland. Therefore, hope for Israel should be closely studied in the context of its own
history as well that of the Church, referring both to the New and Old Testament. Does the
fate of Israel have anything to do with the Church and the salvation of the world?
Conversely, do the Church and its mission have any relation with Israel’s salvation?
Its relationship with Israel is fundamental for the Church. Without this
relationship the Church would lose sight of its mission as well as its relationship with the
world and human society. Probably one of the most particular ground-breaking aspects of
the ecclesiology of hope of Moltmann is that the Church of hope has to find its roots in
the Old Testament and its relationship to Israel. “If the Church loses sight of its
orientation to Israel, then its religious, political and earthly relationships will also be
turned into pagan ones, indeed into post-Christian and anti-Christian ones. The Church of
Christ can only understand its historical consciousness of its own nature in accordance
1
198
with the kingdom and messianism (that is, in specifically liberating terms) if it is to grasp
its relationship to Israel, to the Old Testament, and to its divine future.”1
In Church history, from the time of Constantine and during the time of the
Christian state religion, since the Church was considered the only legal religion of state, it
considered the Jews as godless people even to the point of persecuting them.2 Today the
Church regrets this abuse and turns back to the Old Testament, recognizing its origin in
Judaism which also has hope in salvation. Another reason as to why the Church
condemned Israel was because it considered itself as the absolute presence of the
kingdom of God. Consequently, it failed to recognize Judaism as a religion approved by
God. However, the history of the Church has made a turning point. “The rediscovery of
the relevance of the Old Testament, the new discovery of Christianity’s own provisional
nature in the framework of the still unfulfilled hope of the messianic kingdom, and the
recognition of Israel in a partner-like relationship are the elementary presuppositions for a
Christian abolition of ecclesiastical triumphalism.”3
3.1.1. Israel’s special calling

It is true that the Church derives from Judaism. But does Judaism continue to play
that important a role in the present and coming kingdom of God? Moltmann indicates that
Israel is called to salvation, independently of and side by side with the Church, and God
always needs Israel as a people of God.4 So what is the place of Israel on the horizon of
the Church’s messianic mission? In the Old Testament the Jews were the chosen people.
Can the Church replace the Jews as the people of God in messianic times? It is true that
the Church always relies on the Old Testament and lives and reads it as the promise of
God. However, can the Church fulfill its mission without Israel? The responses to these
questions are always a matter of dispute in theology. A turning point in world history is
the re-establishment of the Jewish state fifty years ago. From that time on, the Church has
come to acknowledge the fact that for two thousand years the Jews survived and existed
without a land, and now they return to their promised land. Since the event of the
reestablishing of Israel, the Church has come to consider whether this event is within
1
Ibid., p. 135.
2
Cf. E. SCHILLEBEECKX, Christ, the Experience of Jesus as Lord, New York: Crossroad, 1980, p. 601-602.
3
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Coming of God, p. 197.
199
God’s providence and intention. Thus, the Church cannot but reconsider the promises of
God to Israel and its role in God’s plan for world salvation. The Church firmly believes
that Israel too has a call to salvation, and God will never withdraw his invitation.
Does Jesus Christ with the New Testament fulfill the promises of the Old
Testament? “The messianic promises of the Old Testament are only in principle fulfilled
through the appearance and history of Christ; and only provisionally and partially through
the eschatological gift of the Spirit. Through Christ and in the Spirit they are at the same
time also given universal force. That is why Christianity too still waits and hopes for the
fulfillment of the messianic promises.”1 The Church realizes that “it has to see an
expectant and hopeful Israel by its side as its partner in this history. Only Christ’s
parousia will bring the fulfillment of both the Christian and the Jewish hope - not the one
without the other - that is to say, only in the fellowship of Christians and Jews.”2 “The
Church of Christ is not yet perfect and the kingdom of God has not yet achieved full
revelation as long as these two communities of hope, Israel and the Church exist side by
side.”3 Moltmann underlines the eschatological character of the co-existence of the
Church and Israel. The two communities will not achieve their fulfillment until the
kingdom of God is consummated. For now, both the Church and Israel exist side by side.
Therefore Moltmann concludes that the Church of the New Testament cannot replace the
people of God of the Old Testament: “Thus one cannot conclude… that Israel is the old
religion of the law which since the death and resurrection of Christ has been inherited and
replaced by the Christian religion of love.”4
Another interpretation of the Jewish salvation is that the Jews’ rejection of Christ
paves the way, and is even necessary, for the messianic world mission the Gospels
proclaim. However, in the end, with the direct and special intervention of Christ, Israel
will be converted.5 In this sense the Church has a confident hope for Israel, for Christ will
certainly convert the Jews. In other words, Moltmann holds that the Jews’ rejection of
1
2
Ibidem.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Crucified God, p.136.
4
Ibidem.
5
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Coming of God, p. 197.
200
Christ was necessary for the salvation of the Gentiles, and that the Jews will be saved at
the end through a direct intervention of God.1
If other than praying for Israel, the Church also has hope for her, what else can it
do for her? Does the horizon of the Church’s messianic world mission encompass all
nations, including Israel? Moltmann regrets that Vatican Council II considered Judaism
as a non-Christian religion and the Church itself as the successor to Israel in the history of
salvation.2
3.1.2. Israel like all nations?

The foundation of the state of Israel allowed the Jews to come back to their
homeland. However, there may be a danger for Israel if it will not be different from other
nations.3 In other words, Israel needs to retain its characteristics, vocation, mission, and
hope in the promise of God.
According to Paul Althaus, the Church was built on the foundation of Israel;
however, Israel has ceased to be necessary for the Church. The Church by itself can
fulfill its vocation in the salvation plan of God: “Since Christ’s coming Israel has receded
of itself into the ranks of the other peoples and is included in the missionary charge to all
1
Schillebeeckx also recognizes the legitimacy of the existence of Christianity and Israel alongside one
another: both have hope in the guarantee of salvation. However, there is a slight difference between him
and Moltmann. Schillebeeckx believes that not only was the Jews’ rejection of Christ basic for the
Church’s mission to the Gentiles (like Moltmann’s argument), but also, conversely, that the conversion of
the Gentiles will serve to hasten the salvation of the Jews. Schillebeeckx convincingly interprets the
theology of St. Paul: “Paul was able to combine his universalist conception of salvation with his Jewish
conception of the final and irrevocable election of Israel… This is the explanation of his feverish mission
among the Gentiles, on the one hand ‘so as to make Israel jealous’ (Rom. 11: 11) and on the other to hasten
their salvation. According to Paul, the Church’s mission among the Gentiles is the great hope for Israel.
According to this conception, Paul’s Christianity of his time was at the service of the coming salvation of
Israel. And so Paul suggests the divine mystery that there is no redemption and atonement for Israel
without redemption and atonement among all men” (E. SCHILLEBEECKX, Christ, The Experience of Jesus
as Lord, p. 605-606).
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Crucified God, p. 137. On this subject, I will explore the texts of Vatican II later.
3
For some, the founding of the state of Israel precedes its own repentance and also that of the whole world;
therefore, the consummation of the kingdom of God is at hand. However, in my view, one may argue that
with the war going on in the Middle East, we do not know what will happen to the newly founded state of
Israel. The promise of God of bringing the Israelites back to their homeland has happen twice, once in the
time of the Old Testament, namely from Babylon, and this second time from all over the world. God has
fulfilled his promise twice. If Israel lost its land once, can it happen again? If God returned them home
twice, will he do it again if the Israelites are dispersed again? If this theory is correct, then the founding of
the state of Israel can be an event that is not a sign of some definite coming.
201
nations.”1 R. Bultmann comes to a similar conclusion, for, although Israel was called and
chosen by God, because of its stubbornness it has become one of many gentile nations.
Because it failed to go beyond the letter of the law and accepts the Good News of the
Gospel, it is considered as “an example of the shipwreck of human existence under the
law in general.”2 Contrary to Althaus and Bultmann, Moltmann maintains that Israel is
still the chosen people of God, and God continues to keep his promises to Israel: “He
remains faithful to his promises to Israel and has not cast off his people” (cf. Rom. 9: 4-
24; 11: 2).3
God accompanied Israel in it’s history in the Old Testament; He will continue to
do so for it throughout the history of the salvation of the world: “God sanctifies the
people of Israel by freeing it from its enslavement in the country of the Pharaohs, with its
many gods, and by accompanying it into the promised land of liberty. God wants ‘to
dwell among the Israelites’. As Israel’s traveling companion, and as Israel’s companion
in suffering, too, God sanctifies the people of his choice and makes it ‘a light for the
nations’.”4
The hope of Israel always remains there because God keeps his promise. Israel is
a light for the world. Israel is a prototype for other nations: “What in history is particular
to Israel will become universal in God’s future: all peoples and the whole humanity will
be freed and sanctified, because the Holy God will dwell with them, letting them share in
his eternity and his livingness, as his fellow householders.”5 Israel, thus, is different from
other nations, for it is at the same time the proof of God’s keeping his promise and the
representation of nations.6 God will always keep this promise: “Behold, the dwelling of
God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people” (Rev. 21: 3). In
light of what has been said, I would infer that, according to Moltmann, Israel is the light
1
P. ALTHAUS, Die letzten Dinge, Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1957, p. 309, cited by J. MOLTMANN, The
Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 140.
2
Ibidem; cf. R. BULTMANN, Essays Philosophical and Theological, London: SCM and Macmillan, 1955, p.
182f.
3
4
5
Ibidem.
6
‘Representation’ can have two meanings: 1) a presence on behalf of another entity; it involves two
different realities; 2) a partial presence of a whole future entity; it involves only one reality but in two
phases: (a) a partial presence in the present and (b) a complete presence in the future. Here Israel’s
representation means both the first and the second meaning with (a): a partial presence in the present.
202
of the world, which reflects God’s promise and faithfulness; or would it be better to say
that through God’s involvement in the history of Israel, the world can see its
distinctiveness. God’s act of sanctification cannot exclude Israel. One might even go
further and say that Israel has a special place in the history of God’s dealing with the
world.
3.1.3. Jews and gentiles

Moltmann wants to trace the expansion of the Church back in terms of the origin
of its members. We can say today that the Church consists of gentiles;1 but at the
beginning of the Church, its members were first the converted Jews and converted
gentiles. Pointing out this root of the Church, Moltmann says that theology needs to take
into account the Jewish theological consideration when interpreting the theology of the
Church and of New Testament. In other words, we should realize that the theology of
today, as Gentile Christian theology inherits greatly from Jewish Christian theology.
However, there has been tendency in the Church that does not sufficiently take into
account the position of Jewish people in the Church and in the world, it is because of its
following prejudices, as E. Peterson asserts:
a) The Church always assumes that the Jews have never become believers.
Therefore, the Church is the Church of converted Gentiles.
b) The Church has assumed that the coming of Christ is not imminent;
consequently, the Church has not been interested in Semitic forms of thinking.
Thus the Jewish influence on the Church has lost its vigour. The Church now has
emphasized the doctrine of the Last Things and the moral teachings of Jesus.
c) The Church presupposes that the twelve apostles left the Jews behind and went
out to convert the Gentiles.2
On the contrary, according to Moltmann, the Church’s founding relied heavily on

the Jewish tradition, and thus Israel should have a proper place in Christianity:
1
‘Gentiles’ here means non-Jewish people.
2
These are theses of E. Peterson that Moltmann refers to in The Church in the Power of the Spirit. p. 141-
142. See E. PETERSON, “Die Kirche aus Juden und Heiden” in Theologische Traktate, München: Kösel,
1951, p. 239f.
203
1) The recently converted Jews and the apostles continued to remain under the
law and Jewish tradition. The Gentiles supposed they’d “come to Zion and
receive the divine law after Israel’s renewal.”1
2) “The mission to the Gentiles is by no means bound up with the surrender of
imminent expectation and an exclusion of precise eschatological expectations, but is the
renewal in practice of the Jewish order of hope… The difference between the Jews and
the Gentiles is not leveled down. But the order is reversed (the first will become the last
and the last will become the first in terms of conversion). Even if the Church becomes a
purely Gentile Church, it is still a Church for Israel and with Israel, not contrary to Israel
or without her.”2 Moltmann supports the theory of ‘Eschatological Millenarianism’,
which considers the time from Jesus’ resurrection until the end of the world to be a time
of waiting and hope for Israel and the Church in the return of Jesus Christ. This is the
end-time of history, in which the messianic kingdom of God already begins, and both the
Church and Israel reign. In this messianic kingdom as Rev. 7:9 and 14 indicate, the
“chosen and ‘sealed’ Christians are joined together with the chosen and ‘sealed’ Jews”.
They form the messianic people of the messianic kingdom.3
3) It is because of Israel’s rejection of the gospel that the mission of the Church
shifted to the Gentiles. It is because of the Gentiles’ acceptance of the Gospel that the
Jews will at last convert: “The inmost reason for the detour lies in Christ’s self-surrender
for the reconciliation of the world, but its external cause is Israel’s rejection of the
gospel…Through the redemption of the world Israel’s future will be fulfilled.”4
Moltmann concludes: “If the Church understands its origin, its historical path and its
future in this way, then the Church itself is lived hope for Israel, and Israel is lived hope
for the Church.”5 “It is not that the Gentiles will come and worship when Zion is at the
last redeemed from its shame, but Israel will come when the fullness of the Gentiles have
become partakers of the promise in Christ (Rom. 9-11).” 6
1
2
Ibid., p. 143.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Coming of God, p.192-194, 198-199.
4
5
Ibidem. Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Coming of God, p. 198.
6
J. MOLTMANN, Theology of Hope, p, 147.
204
3.1.4. Israel and inter-religious (ecumenical) dialogue1

Moltmann indicates that in the past there was misinterpreting the ‘catholicity’:
From the time of Constantine to the Middle Age, the Catholic Church was considered a
universal Christian state, which tried to supplant Israel and was there for all, which,
consequently, avoided to involve in conflict, for it was there for everyone and was afraid
of offending anyone.2
One wonders whether the foundation of the state of Israel in the 20th century is a
foreshadowing. What can we infer from these events and reality? According to
Moltmann, this event is a result of Israel’s enduring hope as well as its “obedience to the
will of God according to the Torah.”3 Therefore, “anyone who recognizes Israel
theologically cannot fail to know that for Israel God, people and land are inseparable.”4
In this sense, certainly we have to recognize that the people of Israel of today uniting in
one land is a considerable reality in the history of God’s dealing with the world.
Moltmann seems to lean on the interpretation that the founding of the state of Israel is the
sign of the completion of the fulfillment of all creation.5
1
A majority of theologians do not consider the dialogue between the Church and Judaism as ecumenical
dialogue, for Judaism is not a Christian Church in a strict sense. However, Moltmann and other theologians
(such as Pannenberg and others) do not consider it as interreligious dialogue either.
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 350-351. Later the Church engaged in the
Crusades and missionary work, but these activities were in other theological and historical contexts.
3
4
Ibid., p. 149.
5
Ibidem. There must be a theological implication in the two great events that happened to the Jews in the
last century, i.e. the holocaust and the re-establishment of a country. These events have motivated a great
many theologians, especially the school of hope, to which belong such as J. Moltmann, J. B. Metz, etc., to
return to the subject of the salvation of the Jews (cf. A. R. ECKARDT, “J. Moltmann, the Jewish People and
the Holocaust” in Journal of the American Academy of Religion, vol. 44, 4, 1976, p. 675-691). According
to Moltmann, Christian Churches had become state religions and persecuted the Jews because these
Churches thought that Jews were godless people and ‘irreligious destroyers of society’. This led to
Auschwitz. The Church regrets this prejudice. The founding of the State of Israel also precipitates
theological interpretations both Israel and the Church have to figure out (cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in
the Power of the Spirit, p. 136-137, 139). The Council of Churches has also dedicated a great effort in
studying the subject of Israel in the context of the world salvation. After re-evaluating the role of Israel in
the history of salvation in the timely context of the Old and New Testament, the World Council of
Churches expressed its belief that God has not abandoned his promise to Israel. The World Council of
Churches, however, recognized the two different opinions concerning the exact role of Israel in its
relationship to the Church and the history of the salvation of the world. The first opinion says that the
Church took over the role of the Israel of the Old Testament and is the new people of God intended as the
sign of the universal Kingdom of God announced and inaugurated by Jesus Christ. The second opinion
argues that the present and future Israel is still Israel, i.e., the elect people of God. In this sense, Israel is
walking alongside the Church (cf. G. GRASSMANN, Documentary History of Faith and Order 1963-1993,
Geneva: WCC Publications, 1993, p. 316-320).
205
Moltmann considers Israel as a legitimate people of God existing in parallel with

the Church: “Israel has an enduring ‘salvific calling’, parallel to the Church of the
Gentiles, for God remains true to his election and his promise (Rom. 11:1f.)… It [the
Church] can therefore only remain true to its own hope if it recognizes Israel as the older
community of hope alongside itself.”1
It is necessary to dialogue with Israel with understanding of the framework of the
coming kingdom: Both Israel and the Church anticipate and prepare for the coming
kingdom; the coming kingdom needs both the Church and Israel.2 “Within the horizon of
this hope in the kingdom of God, the Church realizes that it is not the only form and
anticipation of the eternal kingdom within the history of this world. It acknowledges
Israel as an earlier and as a simultaneous anticipation of the kingdom that Jesus
proclaimed… This means that the substance of the kingdom of God is not only shaped in
a Christian fashion, but must also be understood in a Jewish fashion.”3 Moltmann
explains further that “In the history of this unredeemed world, Israel and the Church
remain distinct: The future of Israel is not the Church, and the future of the Church is not
Israel. The Church should not try to Christianize Israel, nor can it devolve into Israel.
Israel and the Church, each in its own way, witness to the nations God’s kingdom,
righteousness, and peace.”4 “Only in the eternal kingdom will the hopes of Israel and of
the Church be fulfilled.”5
The Church has hope both for world religions and for Israel. However, according
to Moltmann, the object of hope of these two entities takes different journeys. The
Church’s hope for the worlds’ religions obtaining salvation is through the means of faith,
while that of Israel will not be through faith but through seeing the coming of Jesus
Christ.6 The Church, therefore, still has a mission towards the worlds’ religions, but has
no mission towards Israel. God himself will save Israel at the end. “Israel will one day be
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Coming of God, p.197-198.
2
Cf. ibid., p. 197, 199.
3
J. MOLTMANN, A Passion for God’s Reign, p. 57-58.
4
Ibid., p. 58.
5
Ibid., p. 57. Although the salvation of the Jews is considered in the context of the Kingdom of God which
will include all nations in the sense that the present condition of Israel reminds us of the eschatological
character of the Kingdom of God, Israel will be saved not on only account of the universality of the
Kingdom, but particularly on account of the promise of God uttered particularly to Israel.
6
Although Israel has faith in God and this faith constitutes its salvation, it will believe in Jesus only when it
sees him at his parousia.
206
redeemed through the seeing of the Christ of the Parousia. That means that all Israel will
not become Christian through faith but through sight it will be redeemed.”1
In the dialogue with Israel, the Church has tried to be comprehensible regarding
the reason why the Jews still deny Jesus Christ. According to three leading representative
Jewish scholars Marin Buber, Schalom Ben-Chorin and Gershom Scholem, Jews say ‘no’
[to Jesus Christ] because they cannot yet acknowledge the presence of a redeemed world
which must take place publicly both spiritually and materially, and they accuse the
‘Christian misinterpretation’ of redemption as being only of the spiritual individual, i.e.,
the salvation of the individual, without including the material world.2 However, these
three Jewish scholars seem to misunderstand the Christian interpretation of redemption
already taken place. According to Christian theology, redemption has already begun with
the inauguration of the Kingdom of God by Jesus Christ, despite the fact that it is still on
its way to perfection and fulfillment. On the contrary, Jewish understand redemption as a
perfect condition of the world, which has not yet taken place.
Moltmann urges the Church to accept and understand Jewish objections to Jesus
in its dialogue: “The Christian ‘yes’ to Jesus’ messiahship, which is based on believed
and experienced reconciliation, will therefore accept the Jewish ‘no’, which is based on
the experienced and suffered unredeemedness of the world; and the ‘yes’ will insofar
adopt the ‘no’ as to talk about the total and universal redemption of the world only in the
dimensions of a future hope, and a present contradiction of this unredeemed world.”3
According to Moltmann, the reason of why the Jews say ‘no’ to Jesus is so that
the Gospel may go to the Gentiles (Rom. 11: 25). “Without Israel’s ‘no’, the Christian
Church would have remained a messianic revival movement within Judaism itself. But
because of the Jewish ‘no’, the Christian community had a surprising experience. It
discovered that the Spirit of God comes upon Gentiles so that they were seized by faith in
Christ directly, without becoming Jews first of all.”4
1
J. MOLTMANN, The coming of God, p. 198.
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Messianic Hope in Christianity” in Concilium 7, 1974, p. 155-161, at 156; The Way
of Jesus Christ, p. 28-29.
3
Ibid., p. 32
4
Ibid., p.34. In my view, it is reasonable to say that St. Paul and Moltmann’s argument might be acceptable
at the beginning of Christendom but invalid now. Even if Israel accepts Jesus today, the Church will not
stop going to Gentiles; therefore, the Jewish ‘no’ cannot be a condition for the Church’s mission to the
Gentiles now. Furthermore, if we look at the situation of the Church’s evangelization today, we can say that
207
What the Church can do for Israel is reminding it of its promise and hope of
salvation, and Israel in turn is a warning for the Church not to fall away from its faith and
vocation.1 “The presence of the Jews constantly forces Christians to see that they are not
yet at their goal, and that their Church too is not the goal.”2 According to Moltmann, the
only one practical way that the Church can answer Israel’s ‘no’ is be hurrying up in
evangelizing the world. In this way, it will help to bring closer the day of Israel’s
redemption.3
In conclusion, Moltmann says that through Israel’s saying ‘no’ to Christ, the
Messiah goes to the Gentiles, and through the Messiah, the Jews can encounter the
Gentiles: “In Jesus Christ, Israel herself encounters believers from the nations in
messianic form. Because Christ opens Israel to the Gentiles, the gentiles for their part are
gathered into the divine history of promise and faithfulness towards Israel.”4 Again the
Church that already recognizes Jesus continues to remind Israel of its selection and
promise. Moltmann indicates that the Church cannot proselytize to Israel as if it were a
non-Christian nation, nor unite it to the Church as if it were already a Christian people.5
According Moltmann, dialogue with Israel6 is not an ecumenical nor an inter-
religious dialogue because the Church has no right to expect Israel to ‘join’ with it as the
overall the Gospel is already preached to all nations; therefore the reason for Israel’s ‘no’ is not so that the
Church may turn to the Gentiles. There must be another reason for Israel’s delay in recognizing Jesus as the
Messiah. One of the reasons is that, as already mentioned, Israel does not yet see the presence of a
redeemed world, which is the sign of the presence of the Kingdom of God. The other reason is proposed by
St. Paul and accepted by Moltmann: Israel’s jealousy. Israel will convert only when it becomes jealous at
seeing the world accept Jesus. Then the Jews will accept him too.
1
Cf. ibid., p.35. In my view, it is obvious that the Church cannot fall away from its faith; however, it can be
at fault in falling behind in the vocation and mission faith entails.
2
J. MOLTMANN, “Messianic Hope In Christianity”, p.160.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Ways of Jesus Christ, p. 36.
4
Ibidem.
5
However, it is reasonable to pose this question: Should God have to wait until the end of time to save
Israel? Is it not better for Israel if it were to accept Jesus now and begin practicing the teachings of the New
Testament now? Is it not right to interpret St. Paul (Rom. 11: 11, 14) as saying that Israel will have to wait
until all other peoples turn to God, then Israel will be the last to repent? This interpretation would impose a
limit on the will of God and be a disadvantage to Israel. Indeed, contradicting this interpretation attributable
to St. Paul that the purpose of the stubbornness of Israel is in order that the Church may turn to other
nations, Israel needs not wait until the end because even if it repents now, the Church will not stop
evangelising other nations. Therefore, the Church’s turning to the Gentiles is not the reason for Israel’s
delay in repentance and the Church’s mission of preaching the Good News to all nations does not depend
on whether or not the Jews refuse or accept Jesus. The Church’s nature is always missionary. In light of this
argument, should the Church need to change its view vis-à-vis Israel?
6
Dialogue with the Jewish people is of great importance for many reasons. First of all, because the history
of salvation involves Israel; secondly, the Kingdom of God will include Israel; thirdly this dialogue will
208
Church expects unity in the ecumenical effort, nor should it expect to take on the mission
towards it as to other non-Christian religions. Israel has its own vocation to continue to
exist alongside the Church until when (probably at the end of time) God will convert it.1
3.1.5. New appraisals of Israel

Moltmann believes that the Church should consider the Jews as a chosen people
of God in a different way from the Church. They already know God and God has his own
way of leading them to their final destination. Therefore Judaism can exist alongside the
Church and the Church should not regard the Jews in the same light as the Gentiles who
still need to hear the Good News. In this sense, Moltmann grumbles: “I regard the
declarations of the second Vatican Council on the attitude of the Church to the Jews to be
weak, since here Judaism is still included amongst the ‘non-Christian religions’, while the
Church is described as a successor organization in the history of salvation to Israel, which
she cannot be.”2
Moltmann interprets the document Nostra aetate of Vatican Council II as saying
that the Church does not take place of Israel, nor does it succeed Israel in salvation
history. Therefore, according to Moltmann, as long as the Jews remain unconverted,
Judaism is a thorn for the Church, because the Church feels that it has not completed its
enrich the Church’s understanding of its heritage of faith and tradition. Although Israel cannot guarantee
the correct interpretation of the Old Testament (as the World Council of Churches states: Cf. G.
GRASSMANN, Documentary History of Faith and Order 1963-1993, p. 320.), it will provide the Church its
own understanding of the Old Testament. Finally, dialogue with the Jews is part of the mission of the
Church.
1
The arguments of H. Küng are similar to those of J. Moltmann on many points: Israel exists alongside the
Church (due to their particular vocation), the Church should not missionize Israel, the Church needs to give
witness of love to Israel, Israel will accept Jesus Christ out of jealousy when it sees all other nations
believing in him (cf. H. Küng, The Church, p. 132-150.)
2
J. MOLTMANN, The Crucified God, p. 137; cf. The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 146.Vatican
Council II includes Judaism in the document ‘Declaration on the Relation of the Church to non-Christian
Religions Nostra Aetate (n. 4)’, in which Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam are also addressed. With regard to
the relationship with Israel, the Catholic Church is not decisively clear in grouping Judaism in the
ecumenical dialogue or in the inter-religious dialogue. Vatican Council II includes the subject of Israel in
the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to non-Christian Relations Nostra Aetate, while the
document Guidelines on Religious Relations with the Jews (1974) talks about the “ecumenical aspect”. The
Holy Father instituted a Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, which works in joining with
the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. It is noticeable that both these documents want to make sure
that catechising, preaching and giving witness to Jesus may not offend or create misunderstanding among
Jews. However, the Catholic Church does not have the intention of evangelising the Jews in an explicit way
as it would non-Christians. It points in an eschatological direction: “Together with the prophets and that
same apostle, the Church awaits the day, known to God alone, when all peoples will call on God with one
voice and “serve him shoulder to shoulder” (Soph. 3: 9; cf. Is. 66: 23; Ps. 65: 4; Rom. 11: 11-32) (Vatican
II, Nostra Aetate, n. 4).
209
mission, and the Church too is a thorn for Israel because the Church makes Israel jealous.
This interpretation is not all together negative, for being a thorn for one another can
produce a positive effect: the two religions may complement one another. Judaism can
give testimony to Christianity insofar as being a living chosen people of God of the Old
Testament.1 Furthermore, the existence of Judaism also yields another positive aspect in
that it reminds the Church of its ongoing mission. On the other hand, the Jews may regard
the Church as a thorn for them, but in this way the Church will stay awake and be aware
of its mission of giving a witness of love to the world. Only in this way will the Jews
abandon the idea of considering Christianity a thorn and they will recognize Jesus as the
Savior through the witness of the Church (cf. Rom. 11: 11, 14).
The Church always recognizes that the Jewish people and the Church both claim
to be heirs to the same Old Testament. In fact, according to Moltmann, the Jews and the
Church share the same ‘source’: one book of the Old Testament and one hope.2 However,
the Church also acknowledges its mistakes toward Jews during the last twenty centuries,
alienating both communities. What approaches should the Church now take to the Jewish
people?
- The Church needs to explain to the Jews that they and the Church have the same
understanding of the redemption promised by God, which entails both spiritual and
material spheres, both invisible and visible world, both soul and body.3
-The Church will make it clear that it does not hold the Jews responsible for the killing of
Jesus. According to Moltmann, the killing of Jesus has theological implications.4
- The Church and Israel exist alongside one another in their both anticipating the coming
kingdom. Within the context of the kingdom, the Church’s attitude towards Judaism
should focus more on the ecumenical issue, i.e., engaging in healing the breach (such as
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 148-149. On this point, nobody seems as yet
to have seen the importance of the Church’s being able to relate to the Old Testament through the present
existence of Judaism. Were Judaism to have disappeared, it would have caused Christians to question who
the Jews and Judaism were and there would be no answer from living Jews. In this case, Judaism would be
only history.
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, A Passion for God’s Reign, p.56; The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 137;
VATICAN II, Nostra Aetate, n. 4.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Way of Jesus Christ, p.28-29; “Messianic Hope in Christianity”, p.156.
4
Israel’s denial of Jesus serves three purposes: 1) It’s denial of Jesus prompts the evangelization of the
world and reminds us that God still keeps his promise. 2) It represents man’s rejection of God’s salvation
offered in Christ until the end. 3) Furthermore, there is a link between the hope for Israel and that of the
world, which will be completed only at the end of time.
210
further emphasizing education against anti-Semitism)1, rather than being a missionary

witness. Existing side by side, both the Church and Israel bring hope to the world: Israel
praises God through the teachings of the Torah and the story of the exodus and covenant;
the Church praises God by giving witness to the Gospel and the history of Jesus Christ.2
3.2. Hope for the world’s religions and nonreligious

Since the Church is the Church of Christ and is there for the world, in living
among other religions, it has to decide the form of relationship it should have with them,
referring both to the promise of God and the universal future of the kingdom of God. The
Church is commissioned to baptize people of all nations (cf. Mt. 28:19). Does this mean
that in the end all non-Christian religions will disappear so that the universal kingdom of
God may be realized? Does it mean that the Church will consider other religions as
temporary entities and will treat them in light of this judgment? Or on the contrary, if the
Church realizes that the Church will remain a minority for a long time and that other
religions are included in the plan of God’s dealing with the world, how should the Church
maintain its relationship with them? The Church of Christ tries to answer these questions,
considering God’s universal plan of salvation and anticipating the kingdom of God at its
completion in which Jesus will gather all people of all religions at his parousia.
3.2.1. Theology of religions and inter-religious dialogue

Theology of religions has many motives for its development and growth: First of
all, in modern times, the sense of being one family of humanity with one hope of living in
peace, security and prosperity is dominant and prevalent. However, this does not mean
that the nations will sacrifice their own identities, disappear and merge into one nation of
the world or that religions will become one religion, but it means that the diverse
religions and nations will find their common grounds and consequently will be able to
1
“There may be a danger that, instead of reducing anti-Semitism, we may even increase it by concentrating
too much on this issue”(G. GRASSMANN, Documentary history of Faith and Order 1963-1993, p. 322). In
this regard, it is essential that Church emphasize dialogue and its relationship with the Jewish people
without neglecting educating Christian and non-Christian peoples regarding the reality of the role of Israel
in the history of salvation and the world. The Church’s dialogue and relationship with Israel should not go
too slow or too fast with regard to the public understanding and approval, otherwise there may indeed be an
increase instead of decrease of anti-Semitism.
2
211
live together on this planet with mutual respect and common aspiration for a better world.
The foundation of this feasible utopia is the need for unity and hope in the future.
Furthermore, today people of different faiths are living next to one another; they
cannot ignore one another, but try to get to know one another with regard to the faith and
culture of each.1
From another perspective, we cannot ignore the deadly threats to humanity.
Nuclear weapon, war, conflict, famine, domination, ideological imperialism, and the ever
more dangerous destruction of the earth’s environment (caused by man) awaken the
awareness of the need for collaboration between religions. Religions cannot fight one
another, but on the contrary, they have to come together to help find a solution to the
crisis of the earth and humanity.2 Moltmann says: “General threat can only be overcome
by common efforts, there is a demand for new community.”3
In order to be able to coexist with the world religions, the Church needs to
practice a double requirement: Recognizing the positive aspects in other religions, and
giving up its own claim of absolutism.
3.2.1.1. Appraisals of Non-Christians

The Church now theologically recognizes the positive aspects and the possibility
of salvation in other religions and cultures, acknowledging that there is also hope in other
religions. Therefore, the Church’s mission has a different approach, accompanied with a
respect for all cultures and religions. The Church considers that other religions have the
same mission of perfecting the world. At the same time, the Church has to continue to
affirm its mission of bringing the Good News to all nations, baptizing and founding new
Churches. In performing its mission, the Church always thinks of the kingdom of God
both in terms of quality and quantity.4
1
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Dient die ‘pluralistische Theologie’ dem Dialog der Weltreligionen?” in Evang.
Theol. 49, 1989, p. 528-536 at 535-536; The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 152.
3
Ibid., p. 150.
4
Cf. ibid., p. 151-153.
212
Moltmann additionally acknowledges in human beings an inborn ability to

transcend to the Ultimate.1 Therefore, we can talk about hope for non-Christian religions
and hope for non-religious in this same section.
Moltmann seems to touch lightly the transcendental theology. According to him,
in modern time, theology has talked insistently about man’s ability to come to God. Man
wants to talk about God. But in order to be able to talk about God, man lets himself be
confronted by God. In this process, man looks at his own existence and lets God
penetrate him through faith. In this sense, “if faith is a matter of comprehending our own
existence, then that means at the same time comprehending God, and vice versa.”2
Moltmann’s transcendental theology relates both to anthropological and cosmic as well
as historical theology. In fact, “hence questionability is the structure of human existence.
Man is by nature in quest of himself. In and with the question raised by his existence
there arises the question of God.”3 However, man cannot see himself if he does not see
himself in relation to history, society and world (Weltanschaung). To affirm this
condition of man’s self-understanding, Moltmann writes: “Is any self-understanding of
man conceivable at all which is not determined by his relation to the world, to history, to
society?4
If according to the transcendental theology, there is hope for man because he has
the ability to project himself to God; there is also hope for those who affiliate to non-
Christian religions. Keeping this reality in mind, the Church feels the need of entering
into dialogue and co-operation with world religions with a different mentality from that
of the colonial period, when the Church considered other religions as enemies or
superstitions and wrongly felt absolute enthusiasm about proselytizing the whole world.5
3.2.1.2. Absolutism or relativism?

Regarding the history of the Church’s relationship with other religions, we can
recall the period of Christian absolutism when Christianity considered itself the holder of
1
In K. Rahner’s theology, it is called transcendental theology. For further understanding of K Rahner’
transcendental theology, see his book Foundation of Christian Faith, p. 75-81. See also R. GIBELLINI,
Panorama de la Théologie au XXe Siècle, p. 253-270.
2
3
Ibid., p. 60.
4
Ibid., p. 64.
5
213
the absolutely supernatural truth while other religions possess only partially natural truth:
“Outside the Church no salvation.”1 In this respect, the Church thought that it had a duty
to perfect other religions. Consequently, other religions are only interim and provisional.
“Only Christianity can term itself the absolute self-manifestation of God and the
eschatological presence of the Spirit. It contains within itself the completion of the
history of divine Being and it represents the end of the history of religion.”2 According to
Moltmann, today Christianity needs to think and act differently. The Church has to
renounce both exclusive and inclusive claims, for the Church is for other religions and
does not expect them to disappear very soon.3 Once the Church has hope in people of
other religions obtaining salvation, the dialogue between religions becomes easier.
In fact, we have seen that during the period of the imperial Church, the principle
was ‘outside the Church there is no salvation’. Since the Second Vatican Council, “all
men of good will can achieve salvation”.4 Thus, the Church has a new vision of the
kingdom of God. Now, we can say: “Christ has come and was sacrificed for the
reconciliation of the whole world. No one is excluded. Outside the salvation that Christ
brings to all men there is therefore no Church.”5 Moltmann notes that theology, resulted
from dialogue, has gone through three stages: from anathema to dialogue; from dialogue
to co-existence; from co-existence to convivence. I see that these three stages seem to
correspond to the three theological models of theological paradigm: Ecclesiocentric,
Christocentric, and Theocentric.6
1
Cf. ibid., p. 153. The General Council of Florence, in the Decree for the Copts, states that the Roman
Catholic Church “firmly believes, professes and preaches that no one remaining outside the Catholic
Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life” (DS
1351). This statement is represented in the axiom “Extra Ecclesia nulla salus”, conceived by St. Cyprian
and pronounced by the Council of Florence in 1442. Cf. J. NEUNER, J. DUPUIS, The Christian Faith,
Bangalore, India: Theological Publication, 1996, p. 285.
2
3
Cf. ibid., p.158
4
Moltmann probably wants to refer to the document Nostra Aetate of Vatican II. I cannot find an exact
statement, but a similar one: “Throughout history even to the present day, there is found among different
peoples a certain awareness of a hidden power, which lies behind the course of nature and the events of
human life. At times there is present even recognition of a supreme being, or still more of a Father. This
awareness and recognition results in a way of life that is imbued with deep religious sense” (Nostra Aetate,
n. 2; cf. Gaudium et Spes. n. 22).
5
6
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, Experiences in Theology, p.20. Salvation theology has undergone a threefold change
of paradigm: Ecclesiocentric, Christocentric, and Theocentric. 1) In the Ecclesiocentric model, Jesus Christ
is the unique and exclusive mediator for salvation and the Church is the unique and exclusive institution,
through which salvation comes. From the time of the Fathers of the Church until Vatican Council II, this
214
For some protestant theologians such as K. Barth, Emil Brunner, F. Gogarten, and
R. Bultmann1, faith is not necessarily bound to religion. Faith is different from religion.2
Moltmann interprets the intention of these authors on this: one cannot limit the
boundaries of faith to only within the Church, which is a religion. “For that reason we
cannot deduce the absolutism of Christianity3 over against the world religions from the
theological difference between revelation and religion, faith and superstition. The
relationship of Christianity to the other religions must be defined differently.”4 The
Church needs to take the following few aspects into account. First of all, the Church
needs to realize that other religions also have missions. Therefore, in performing its
mission, the Church also has to respect the missions of other religions. Secondly, the
Church is aware of the positive aspects in the theology, culture, tradition and language of
other religions.5
In accordance with the acceptance of co-existing with other religions, the Church
needs to diminish its Western influence in the world. Although Christianity more or less
is present in all over the world, however, the Western texture of the Church is still very
model dominated theological discourses with the axiom “Extra Ecclesia nulla salus”. This theology
resulted from the conclusion that non-Christian religions were wrong. 2) In the Christocentric model, Jesus
Christ is the mediator constitutive of salvation. Without Christ there is no salvation, but the salvation that
God offers constitutively in Christ can also touch those who do not believe in Christ. Therefore one can
obtain salvation outside Christ (extra Christum) but always necessarily constitutively by Christ (propter
Christum). In this sense, the non-Christian religions are considered as a possible way of salvation insofar as
they are oriented towards the event of Christ. The Church is no longer considered as the center of the
world with regard to the rapport between God and humanity. Now Jesus Christ is the center: “In fact, it is
Him and not it (the Church) who is the center of the Christian mystery; the Church, on the contrary, is a
mystery derived from and connected with Him, which finds its ‘raison d’être’ in Him”(J. DUPUIS, Vers une
théologie chrétienne du pluralisme religieux (Cogitatio Dei), Paris: Cerf, 1997, p. 280, trans. mine). 3) In
the Theocentric model, not Jesus Christ but God is center. In this theocentric model, all religions are
considered as being paths that lead to the center, which is God. In Jesus one can encounter God, but God
does not only manifest himself in Jesus. One can find God in different ways. Jesus is Totus Deus (God
totally), but he is not Totum Dei (totality in God). Jesus Christ is considered as one of many figures or ways
that lead to God. This is why this model is called ‘pluralism’ (cf. J. DUPUIS, Vers une théologie chrétienne
du pluralisme religieux, p. 271-286).
1
Cf. R. BULTMANN, Prophecy and Fulfillment in Essays Philosophical and Theological, p. 182 f. cited by
2
3
Here Moltmann alternates between ‘Church’ and ‘Christianity’. ‘Christianity’ does not mean an idealism,
but ‘Christian religion’.
4
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p.154-155.
5
Cf. ibid., p. 159, and 162-163.
215
strong and visible in non-Western continents, which tend to prohibit the development of
other cultures within the worldly Churches.1
The relationship between Christianity and non-Christian religions is strengthened
through the relationship between local communities of different religions. Furthermore,
the scope of this relationship becomes increasingly international. However, there is the
need to follow the ethos that the non-Christian communities should also have the
opportunity to develop and express their own cultures and characteristics. Conversely, the
Church also has a mission to bring hope to other religions by presenting the positive
aspects of Christianity through their life of witness. Moltmann says: “If it is true that
many religions have their faces so turned away from the world that they disseminate
social indifference, then the presence of Christians makes them recognize social
responsibility and the activities appropriate to it.”2
“It is not a question of whether other religions can also be ‘paths to salvation’ or
whether people in religions other than Christianity can also seek and possibly find God,
or whether there can by ‘anonymous Christian’ also among the members of other
religious communities - or whatever the questions may be that address the theological
significance of other religions. Rather, in this context it is a question of life itself within
those other religions, and similarly a question of life within the nonreligious, secular
world.”3 Moltmann says that ultimately the value of religion will be judged by whether or
not a religion protects and provides support for life. If religion does not do so, it will
perish altogether with death, death of the earth, death of humanity.
In fact, religions, in order to be accepted in the world, i.e., to become ‘world
religions’, need to promote and ensure the security of the well being of humanity, which
depends on the survival of the earth and other creatures.4 In order to become ‘world
religions’, religions have to subordinate themselves to the world’s preservation. They
have to give up their claims to absoluteness; they have to be tolerant towards one another.
1
Cf. ibid., p.151, 158-159
2
Cf. ibid., p. 158.
3
J. MOLTMANN, A Passion for God’s Reign, p. 62.
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Human Rights, the Rights of Humanity and the Rights of Nature” in Concilium
1990/1, p.120-135, at 133; cf. Experiences in Theology, p. 21.
216
They have to “free themselves from the social prisons in which they exist.”1 Western
religions need to include African and Asian religions in their effort of promoting an
equilibrium of the environment: “Today the inter-religious dialogue will have to direct its
attention towards these human questions (the ecological problem, the harmony between
human history and nature and the unity of person and nature) if it is to be of practical
value for both the Western and the Eastern religions, and for humanity.”2 Moltmann
states further: “Christianity will only become a ‘world religion’ when it gives up its
Eurocentric character and ceases to be a religion of the First World to become a religion
that is present in a like manner and with equal rights among all peoples, especially among
those of the Third World.”3
For the well being of religions, Moltmann affirms the following requirement from
state: 1) State has to protect free practice of all religions, 2) Laws must be applied equally
to all religions, 3) Human and civil rights cannot be infringed in the name of religion, 4)
There must be separation between state and religion, i.e., there will be no engagement in
one another affair.4
3.2.2. Inter-religious dialogue

If in the past there were times when Christianity regarded other religions as
enemies, today it considers them as partners in the world. Keeping this in mind, the
Church still has a mission with a double goal: on the one hand, continuing proclaiming
the gospels, awakening faith, baptizing and founding new Churches, improving the lives
of people qualitatively; on the other hand, respecting and co-operating with other
religions. To achieve this goal, the Church needs to dialogue with others.5
1
J. MOLTMANN, “Christianity in the Third Millennium”, p. 87. For Moltmann, the ‘social prisons’ are:
Hindu caste system for Hinduism, religion of the Arab victors for Islam, the Eurocentric and first-world-
centric form for Christianity.
2
J. MOLTMANN, “Human Rights, the Rights of Humanity and the Rights of Nature”, p.134.
3
J. MOLTMANN, “Christianity in the Third Millennium”, p. 87.
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, Experiences in Theology, p. 21-22.
5
Vatican Council II has high respect for other religions and recognizes the saving value and truth found in
them. In the “Declaration on the Relation of the Church to non-Christian religions,” the council addresses
three aspects: its special relationship with Judaism, its acknowledgement of the closeness between Islam
and Christianity in terms of faith, doctrine and practice; and it also recognizes the religious sagacity found
in the less defined religions as well as the well-defined theology in the two great religions: Hinduism and
Buddhism. “The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high
regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines although differing in many ways from
her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men”(VATICAN II,
217
3.2.2.1. Methods of religious dialogue

Since dialogue between world religions is beneficial for humanity, the Church
therefore encourages entering into dialogue with other religions. However, a question is
raised concerning how this dialogue should begin and its methods. The answer is that this
dialogue is totally different from that of ecumenism. Certainly, a theological dialogue is
not the method here. “It is not possible to determine this level from the Christian side by
means of theological scholarship; for ‘theology’ is a Christian specialty and peculiarity…
Other religions have other forms of expression, and so will wish to choose their own level
of dialogue, e.g., the cult, meditation, or other areas of religious practice.”1
Moltmann distinguishes two types of inter-religious dialogue: direct dialogue and
indirect dialogue. Both kinds of dialogues have hitherto not included the so-called nature
religions; only the ‘great’ religions have come together for dialogue; they are: Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism.2
In direct dialogue, the representatives of these religions come together to inform
one another about each other’s religion. “Nothing more comes from such direct dialogue
among representatives of the world religions than better-information about one’s partner,
and an understanding for the differences of the others and respect for one another; no
mixing is intended, though mutual influence is probably one result.”3 In indirect
dialogue, common issues, such as peace in the world and the ecological crisis, etc., are
discussed. In this context, it is more a conference about the ‘religions of the earth’ than
the world religions’ dialogue.
Nostra Aetate, n. 2). Therefore, the Council encourages all Christians to enter into dialogue and
collaboration with members of other religions: “The Church, therefore, urges her sons to enter with
prudence and charity into discussion and collaboration with members of other religions. Let Christians,
while witnessing to their own faith and way of life, acknowledge, preserve and encourage the spiritual and
moral truths found among non-Christians, also their social life and culture” (VATICAN II, Nostra Aetate, n.
2).
1
2
As seen above in the section of Hope for Israel, Moltmann is against the idea of considering Judaism on a
plane with other non-Christian religions. Here Judaism is included in the inter-religious dialogue; this does
not mean that it is regarded as a non-Christian religion, but rather as one of the three Abrahamic religions
(Judaism, Christianity and Islam), which has its own right in participating in the inter-religious dialogue.
3
218
3.2.2.1.1. Direct dialogue

According to Moltmann, direct inter-religious dialogue does not need to include
the doctrine of original sin and revelation,1 but should seek out the presence of the
charisma of God’s spirit. In other words, pluralistic theology should consider that in all
religions one can find truth, and believers do not need to abandon their religion because
they already have the charisma of God’s spirit: “Everyone should remain in the state in
which he was called”(I Cor. 7:20). “According to the new, pluralistic theology of
religion, such people do not even need to become Christians at all if they have found the
divine truth in their own religions.”2 What is this charisma of God’s spirit? It is ‘the
keeping of God’s commandments in the freedom of Christ. Moltmann argues that if in
the past there were Greek Christians, Jewish Christians, and today there are Roman,
Germanic, and Slavic Christianity, “why not then also a nonreligious Christianity as well,
and a Hindu, Buddhist, and Confucian Christianity?”3
Moltmann recognizes that there is a suspicion on the part of non-Christians when
they enter inter-religious dialogue. They think that they may be subjected to ‘a new
mission program’ or ‘an export of Western culture’. In this regard, there is a better way to
carry on inter-religious dialogue: religions can come together for dialogue on the
celebration of Earth Day or at Global Forum conferences or ecological conferences.4
Moltmann calls this kind of dialogue: Indirect Dialogue.
3.2.2.1.2. Indirect dialogue

If in direct dialogue, religious concepts concerning God, humanity, nature and
salvation are shared, in indirect dialogue, religious ideas are not at issue, but the subject
of global social and ecological questions are discussed. The following questions are
raised: Whether world religions have contributed to causing social and ecological
1
Here Moltmann wants to emphasize the charisma that the inter-religious dialogue should recognize in all
religions; the topics of original sin and revelation are secondary.
2
3
Ibidem. On this point Moltmann is not logical, because the terms ‘Greek’ ‘Jewish’, ‘Roman’, ‘Germanic”,
and ‘Slavic’ designate the cultural aspect while ‘nonreligious’, ‘Hindu’, ‘Buddhist, and ‘Confucian’, the
religious aspect. Putting the cultural and religious categories in the same perspective is not acceptable.
However, Moltmann’s advocating for Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian or nonreligious Christianity leads to the
theological discussion of ‘double appartenance’.
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Christianity in the Third Millennium”, p. 87-88.
219
problems; what can world religions do now in order to save and protect the earth so that
all creatures can live in peace?1
Moltmann complains that hitherto the great religions haven’t been sufficiently
concerned with the ecological crisis, while the African religions have had better insights
with regard to the cycles and rhythms of the earth, but are hardly represented in these
conferences. Therefore, there is a need for reform in the inter-religious dialogue.2 In
reform, the community of world religions must allow the presence of other than African
religions, i.e., also indigenous religions: “It further means that indigenous Christianity
will enter into dialogue, exchange and mutual co-operation with the respective
indigenous religions.”3
3.2.2.2. Conditions for inter-religious dialogue

Moltmann identifies two possible background elements that may motivate
religions to come together for dialogue: skeptical and productive tolerance.
With skeptical tolerance, each religion claims to obtain absolute truth. In order to
be respected by other religions in this respect, each religion needs to respect others. With
productive tolerance, one believes that truth is still hidden; therefore, man continues to
strive after truth: “every religion is a means of educating humanity and a transitional
stage of pure morality.”4 Each religion obtains only a partial truth. The truth will be
manifested in the future, and the contest or dialogue between religions will reach the goal
of obtaining the truth only in the future. This can turn into relativism if religions
‘relativize’ their differences. Relativism reasons that no religion has the right to
determine the ethos of other religions.
Moltmann disregards both absolutism and relativism, saying: “In most cases
religious relativism seems simply to be a cloak for a new absolutism, even if it does not
already behave absolutely itself.”5 Relativism can, in fact, be a kind of absolutism
because in relativism there is always someone to decide the conditions and the goal for
the ethos and functions of religions. Both skeptical tolerance resulting from absolutism,
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, Experiences in Theology, p. 21.
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, A Passion for God’s Reign, p. 59-60; Experiences in Theology, p. 20-21; “Christianity
in the Third Millennium”, p. 88.
3
4
Ibid., p. 156.
5
Ibidem.
220
and productive tolerance resulting from relativism are based on idealism of truth:
“Absolutism and relativism are really twins, because both view ‘everything’ from a
higher, non-historical watch-tower.”1 Therefore, they should not be accepted. On the
contrary, tolerance needs to be motivated by historical reality, which is the quest for “a
climate for life in fellowship.”2
Christian theology today is aware of the reality of multi-faith existence and
realizes that it is necessary to accept the co-existence in fellowship of different religions.
Therefore, different religions practice mutual recognition and dialogue, in which their
representatives listen and talk to one another in the inter-religious dialogue. 3
In order to be capable of dialogue, Christian theologians need to be interested in
other religions, to have open-minded awareness of their different lives, and to have ‘will
to live together’. This may result in making Christian religions change and the lives of
Christian theologians become vulnerable.4 Furthermore, it happens that “scholars
belonging to other religions often perceive the particular character of Christianity more
distinctively than Christian theologians (and vice-versa).”5 In this sense, in interfaith
dialogue, a participant can gain more understanding of his own religion through listening
to others and helping others understand their own religions through sharing his/her
knowledge about their religions as well as through how he is convinced and knows about
his/her own religion: “Fruitful dialogue involves clear knowledge about the identity of
one’s own faith on the one hand; but on the other it requires a feeling of one’s own
incompleteness and a real sense of need for fellowship with other.”6
In order to produce good results, Christian theologians need to meet two
requirements: 1) Having comprehensive knowledge of one’s own religion and also of
other religions7; 2) Having affirmation (self-confidence) about his own religion. Having
1
Ibid., p. 157.
2
Ibid., p.159
3
Cf. J. MOLMANN, Experiences in Theology, p. 18.
4
Ibidem.
5
Ibid., p. 19.
6
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 159; cf. also p. 152.
7
Here, by knowledge Moltmann means the scientific knowledge of other religions. However, the mutual
religious understanding has both theological and spiritual dimensions. In practice, in order to obtain a
mutual understanding, there are two aspects needing to be put in practice. First, each party should share its
theology, knowledge and the life of its own religion while the other parties should be open to new insights.
Secondly, according to many theologians, one cannot understand another religion if he does not really
221
the first requirement is not enough for inter-religious dialogue, because knowledge of
religions by themselves is the result of scientifically objective studies and in itself is a-
religious. Therefore, there is a need for the second requirement. Moltmann says that with
the second requirement, a representative acquires a merit dialogue. A participant in the
inter-religious dialogue needs to be convinced of his/her own religion.1 “The person who
falls victim to the relativism of the multicultural society may be capable of dialogue, but
that person does not merit dialogue.”2 Interfaith dialogue does not allow the experts to
speak only for themselves. The participants need to be able to speak for their community
too.3
Moltmann states further that dialogue becomes serious only when it is necessary,
i.e., when there is a life-threatening conflict concerning the whole truth of religions, with
a hold on the hearts of men and women.4 In my view, this statement makes inter-religious
dialogue relative. Inter-religious dialogue should become a culture of life, because its
purpose is not achieving peace among religions but sharing life.
3.2.2.3. Missio Dei

In the past, because theology thought that ‘salvation resides in submission to the
teaching office of the Church’, the Church, believing that all missions were missions of
the Church, tried to expand itself through evangelizing Africa, America and Asia. But
according to Molmann, from the original meaning, mission is missio Dei, not missio
practice that religion. In other words, a person has to practice two religions at the same time, his own
religion and the other one he is entering into dialogue with. The question is raised: Can a person truly
belong to and practice two religions at the same time? Does knowing, belonging to and practicing a religion
require a full commitment of heart and soul and praxis? Many theologians such as M. Amaladoss, J.
Dupuis, C. Geffré, R. Panikkar, P. C. Phan, etc. hold that it is possible to have dual religious membership.
Cf. D. GIRA and J. SCHEUER (eds.), Vivre de plusieurs Religions. Promesse ou Illusion? Paris: Les Édition
de l’Atelier/Les Éditions Ouvrière, 2000, p. 44-64, 122-143; R. PANIKKAR, Salvation in Christ :
Concreteness and Universality. The Supername, Santa Barbara: University of California, 1972, The Trinity
and the Religious Experience of Man, New York: Orbis, 1973; P. C. PHAN, “Multiple Religious Belonging:
Opportunities and Challenges for Theology and Church”in Theological Studies 64, 2003, p. 495-519; also
see C. CORNILLE (ed.), Many Mansions? Multiple Religious Belonging and Christian Identity, Maryknoll,
New York: Orbis, 2002.
1
2
J. MOLMANN, Experiences in Theology, p. 19.
3
Ibid., p. 20.
4
Cf. ibid., 19.
222
ecclesiae. When talking about the Church’s mission, we should understand that the
Church has a mission of fulfilling the mission of God.1
Today theology has to depart from the concept of ‘the kingdom of God’, in which,
the universal future of the nations and the earth is incorporated; “the religions and culture
of other people are not destroyed but rather are opened up to God’s future and filled with
the spirit of hope.”2 In view of the kingdom of God, the Church’s mission is not a
mission for the Church, but is missio Dei. Moltmann says: “If we follow and are
commensurate with the divine mission to other people, we resist the temptation to rule
over them religiously, and respect their human dignity as the image of God.”3 It means
that because God has the intention of saving all people of all religions and cultures, the
Church, in fulfilling Missio Dei, does not exclude anyone, even non-religious people.
Furthermore, for Moltmann, the ultimate value of human being is life. Therefore,
all cultural and religious aspects of other religions or non-religious people that can serve
life are highly valued. In fact, missio Dei is bringing life, healing and comforting; it is
giving a source of life to the world: “mission in this divine sense is thus nothing less than
a movement of life and for healing which spreads comfort and courage to live and raises
up what wants to die. Jesus did not bring a new religion into the world; he brought new
life.”4
In carrying on inter-religious dialogue, the Church considers both the cultural and
religious aspects of all people. In fact, “culture and religion cannot be separated.
Consequently, today we shall also have to enquire into Hindu, Buddhist and Islamic
reasons for faith in Jesus.”5 Indeed, missio Dei invites “all religious and all nonreligious
persons to life, to an affirmation and guardianship of life. Anything that in other religions
and cultures serves life in this sense is good, and must be appropriated into the culture of
life.”6
Therefore, for the Church, practicing inter-religious dialogue and fulfilling its
mission can be accomplished at the same time because both require witnesses of life and
1
Cf. J. MOLMANN, “Pentecost and the Theology of Life” in Concilium 1996/3, p. 123-134, at 128
2
3
Ibidem; cf. “Pentecost and the Theology of Life”, p. 128-129.
4
Ibid., p.129.
5
6
223
love. In their dialogue with people of a different faith, Christians can testify through
giving love and showing interest in others. Christians and the Church, in fulfilling
missio Dei, cannot be indifferent to the poor and strangers, they should accept others as
they are and show love to them in practical ways. Moltmann says that in that way we
“testify to God’s openness to men in our openness to other people and other things. In
that way, we show God’s passion through our living interest in the other. In that way, we
manifest God’s vulnerability in the vulnerability of our love and our readiness for
change.”1
Moltmann argues that if the Church’s mission is a mission of life and love, we
need to replace the passion for spreading the kingdom in the traditional sense; In other
words, we have to stop extending ‘the kingdom’ of Roman-Catholic, Orthodox or
Protestant Churches; we cannot force or convince people to joint our own Church. But
the Church’s mission now is a mission of inviting people to love and life.2
Moltmann indicates that if the Church’s mission is the mission of God, then both
the inter-religious dialogue and mission belong to all religions, because in dialogue,
people give witness of love to one another: “Dialogue is not an antithesis to mission. In
dialogue, the partners involved become mutual witnesses to the truth of their own
religion: the Jew witnesses to the Christian, the Christian to the Muslim, the Muslim to
the Christian and the Jew.”3
3.2.2.4. Moltmann’s experience of religious dialogue

Christianity has come to recognize the good aspects that other religions have; for
example, Islam’s total recognition of the divine lordship and its criticism of idolatry, both
ancient and modern, Buddhism’s mysticism, and the system of balance between man and
nature found in the animist religions of Africa and Asia.4
Elsewhere, Moltmann praises highly three great religions in the Far East, namely,
in China: Taoism is a religion of natural harmony; Confucianism is a religion of social
harmony; and Buddhism (as well as Zen) is a religion of interior and psychological
harmony. The harmony rendered by these religions is not predetermined, but is a product
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p.161; cf. A Passion for God’s Reign, p. 61.
2
Cf. J. MOLMANN, “Pentecost and the Theology of Life”, p. 130.
3
J. MOLTMANN, Experiences in Theology, p. 19.
4
224
of a concord between the rhythm of nature and the cycle of history men insert themselves
into. It is the balance between yin and yang.1 Now it is necessary to have a civil regime
that allows the harmony of the three religions, and the harmony of nature with society
and men, and the harmony of yin and yang. In order to have this happen, one has to
understand that an emperor (civil government) is a “son of heaven,” who must understand
that the earth is governed by heaven (tian). He should know how to guide his people
according to the “way of heaven”(tiantao). According to the teaching of Confucianism,
the “way of sovrano ” must conform to the “way of heaven” by conducting humanity and
nature in a straight way. It is heavenly authority that either legitimates a “son of heaven”
if he fulfils his duty or impeaches him if he does not bring harmony about. Moltmann
rightly asks whether a harmony can result from the unity between culture, ideology and
religion, while facing economic progress in a promised, centralized - industrial society,
on its way to converting the agricultural community2
3.2.2.5. Fruits of religious dialogue

When conducting inter-religious dialogue, the Church also enters into dialogue
with those who do not affiliate with any religion. In other words, the Church also
dialogues with different ideologies, which constitute an important part of the
contemporary world.3 Many who seem not to affiliate with any religion, may find
themselves bound to ‘ancient religions’ which are not among the ‘great religions’ of our
time, yet provide them spirituality in harmony with nature. Moltmann says: “Christianity
…can learn how to relate to the earth from humanity’s more ancient religions….
Christianity will also rediscover its own spirituality of creation and find resonance in the
religion of the earth.”4
In order to have a fruitful dialogue, the Church and other religions have to be
open and be ready to alter their attitudes towards other religions. This is true if the
1
“Yin” and “yang” connote a dialectical reality that consists of two opposite elements (whether darkness
opposed to light, masculine to feminine, active to passive, heaven to earth), which do not necessarily
exclude one another, but rather can mutually complement one another and thus can be found in a harmonic
state. A state of harmony does not necessarily consist of fifty percent of each opposite element. Cf. B.
FAURE, Le Bouddhisme, France: Dominos, 1996.
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, La giustizia crea futuro, Brescia: Queriniana, 1990, p.122-126, trans. by D. Pizzatta
from the German Gerechtigkeit schaft Zukunft, München - Mainz : Kaiser Verlag - Matthias Grünewald
Verlag, 1989.
3
4
J. MOLTMANN, “Christian in the Third Millennium”, p. 89.
225
Church and other religions come together for dialogue, and the Church always dialogues
in view of the kingdom which is already present in an incomplete form, but is open to
completion in the future. The Church has to keep in mind that they exist for the coming
kingdom; therefore, they need to be open to change. “In dialogue the religions change,
Christianity included, just as in personal conversations the expressions, attitudes and
views of the partners alter. The dialogue of world religions is a process into which we can
only enter if we make ourselves vulnerable in openness, and if we come away from the
dialogue changed. We do not lose our identity, but we acquire a new profile (Profil) in
the confrontation with our partner.”1 Dialogue means not only talking but also listening,
not only communicating but also receiving. Therefore, by engaging in inter-religious
dialogue, the Church can listen and be open to what other religions can offer. The Church
also acknowledges its own limitations and sinfulness in the past and also at present and
future, until the kingdom of God is realized.
According to Moltmann, when we talk about the Church’s mission in terms of
quality, we mean that in performing its mission, the Church is actively involved in
improving the life of people, especially the poor and the marginalized. The inter-religious
dialogue also necessarily leads the Church to its ‘quality mission’. This is true when we
recall Moltmann’s discussion about the indirect dialogue, which emphasizes the issues of
peace, justice, and ecological protection, etc. Inter-religious dialogue does not only
discuss the dogmas but also the topics that are essential to the life of human beings and
other creatures. In this sense, “dialogue is a sign of hope for these people if it is carried
on in the interests of their life and liberation.”2
Through participating in inter-religious dialogue, the Church enriches itself
because it can integrate certain cultural and religious aspects of other religions into its
own worship and devotion. At the same time, the Church needs to affirm other religions
in their positive cultural and religious aspects. “People of other religions, and the other
religions themselves, bring a wealth of potentialities and powers with them; and
Christianity must not suppress these but must fill them with hope. Then the dialogue of
world religions can also become a sign of hope for the people who have no definite
1
2
Ibid., p. 162.
226
religion or religious practice, but whose elemental cry is for liberation, life and
redemption.”1
“Fruitful dialogue involves clear knowledge about the identity of one’s own faith
on the one hand; but on the other it requires a feeling of one’s own incompleteness and a
real sense of need for fellowship with the other.”2 In this sense, the Church is opening up
to other religions, and this is the fruit of the hope in the promise of universal salvation. It
is not syncretic to say that other religions have the potentiality of heading towards the
kingdom too. The Church needs to fill them with hope. The Church has to co-operate
with other religions in liberating the world and preparing it for the coming kingdom.
3.3. Hope for human society

The history of Jesus Christ, who died and was raised from the dead, gives hope to
the whole of human society. Although each believer as individual receives justification,
he belongs to a community to which Jesus Christ also belongs. There is no individual
outside of a community, and a process of becoming a justified human being happens in
the process of becoming a justified community.3
Since the kingdom is already present, although not yet complete, it is necessary
that the Church participate in the process of its perfection. It is important to clarify two
aspects. Firstly, both the Church as an entity and each Christian play an important role in
the hope for human society. They are called to participate actively in the process.
Secondly, when Christians contribute to the kingdom, they need to keep in mind that they
participate not only in a local or regional process but also in a world process of
development. It is even more important for all Churches to realize that this is the world
process the Church is engaging in.
3.3.1. Human rights

Human rights in the traditional sense entail rights and duties of individuals.
However, from a deeper perspective, it is also the rights and duties of humanity as a
whole. Confronted with the tragic damage of nuclear weapons during World War II and
1
Ibid., p.163.
2
Ibid., p.159.
3
On this K. Rahner also says: “The grace of Christ is intended for humanity as a whole; it reaches the
individual insofar as he is a member of the one community of damnation and salvation which represents the
human race as a unity”(K. RAHNER, Theological Investigations: Man in the Church, vol. 2, p.122).
227
the present world situation with weapons of mass destruction, as well as the ecological
crisis and the threat of destruction of the world’s natural resources, concerns for the
survival of the whole of humanity comes to the fore. It is true that the human rights of
individuals are fundamental; however, there will be no more existence of individuals if
humanity vanishes. We have to consider the human rights of both individuals and
humanity as a whole.
3.3.1.1. The rights of individuals

Human rights of individuals have biblical foundations and are oriented towards
humanity as a whole. “The biblical traditions have proclaimed liberation from all
inequalities of class and caste, as well as from the privileges of race, sex and health.”1
Human rights come from God creating men and women in his image.2 Therefore, states
have to respect the human rights of their citizens: “If God the Creator destined man to be
his image on earth, then human dignity, freedom and responsibility precedes every
society and every established system of rule. God’s image on earth is not a king. It is man
as such. Consequently man is not made for the state; the state is made for man.”3
In this sense, human rights are “integral to man’s being man. They are therefore
also termed pre-political or supra-political rights. They are not at the state’s disposal and
the state is bound to respect them.”4 Christians will support a political system when it
respects human rights. A political rule must be tested with regard to human rights.
Political orders which directly cause hunger, persecution, and deprive other human rights
are against hope offered to all human beings by Jesus Christ. Individuals, on behalf of
themselves and others whose rights are denied, have right and duty to resist illegitimate
and illegal rule. Human rights comprise the following areas: human rights to life,
economic human rights, and orientation towards world peace and the unification of
mankind. These aspects can be considered as “guideline for the political action and the
political resistance of Christians.”5
1
2
For a further study of human being’s imago Dei, see J. MOLTMANN, God in Creation, p. 214-243.
3
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 179
4
Ibidem.
5
Cf. ibid., p.181.
228
Are there differences between human rights and Christian rights? Do human
rights include Christian rights? Is it possible that a government respects human rights but
not Christian rights? It is common that many aspects of human rights do not correspond
to Christian rights. State serves the welfare of its people, while the Church serves both
welfare and salvation of people; however, the welfare of the people is often evaluated
according to secular perspective.
As said above, the state has to provide and respect the rights of individuals;
however, it should be clarified that the rights of individuals cannot be served if the
individuals do not contribute to the welfare of themselves and others. In other words,
individuals have duties towards human rights. In this context, we can say that state has
rights to “formulate the fundamental obligations which man as human being has towards
other men, when he claims his human rights.”1
There are possible two extreme concepts of human rights: one overemphasizes the
rights of individuals at the cost of the rights of humankind and the other overemphasizes
the rights of humankind at the cost of the rights of individuals. Neither one is correct.
Society needs individuals and individuals can develop fully only in the context of society.
The two entities complement one another. Moltmann says: “If people are to be able to
live as persons, body and soul, they must discover the divine dignity of community and
look for the future of community. It is only in society that personhood can be developed,
it is not to be perverted into egoistical individualism. But society can be built up only by
persons if it is not to be debased into collectivism.”2 Moltmann distinguishes humankind
from community.3If the rights of individuals suppose to be respected and at the same time
have to orient toward the rights of humanity, the rights of community cannot override
either the rights of individuals or that of humankind. For Moltmann, political rulers of
individual nations and societies are only the servants of individuals and humankind.
3.3.1.2. The rights of humanity

When talking about human rights, Moltmann distinguishes the rights of
individuals from those of humanity as a whole. We can say that the right of individuals
1
Ibid., p. 180.
2
J. MOLTMANN, The Ways of Jesus Christ, p. 269.
3
‘Community’ in this context means the individual nation or individual society.
229
has priority, but the right of humankind as a whole has primacy.1 In other words, the
rights of individuals have to be respected and it cannot be subdued by the rights of
humankind. However, the rights of individual have to expand to the rights of humanity.
Individual persons and individual nations “must see themselves as transitions on the way
to a common organized humanity and must direct their policies towards world peace,
without which mankind has no chance of survival.”2 As there is a propensity towards
global economy, global environment, and global policies, people of different nations
sense that they belong to a global family. Moltmann is aware of this tendency: “It has
been rightly demanded that national policies be changed into world-wide home policy.
Not what good does it do our own nation, my own class and race, but what good does it
do our common peace and the coming community of all mankind? This is the question
that must be asked in every political and economic decision.”3
Therefore, “there are even specific situations in which the rights of humanity have
unconditional priority over the particular rights of certain classes, races and religion, and
when all special interests, however justifiable they may be, have to be subordinated to
humanity’s right to exist.”4 According to Moltmann, the rights of individuals have
priority over the rights of states, and the rights of nations have to serve the rights of
humanity; he writes further: “Solidarity in overcoming common economic and military
world crises must take precedence over loyalty to one’s own people, one’s own class or
race or nation. There can be no respect for human rights in one’s own nation without the
simultaneous alignment of the nation towards humanity.”5 At any rate, both human rights
of individuals and human rights of humanity as whole have to be respected. Neither one
can be sacrificed. States have to serve the well being of human rights.6
1
Moltmann follows the philosophical model of E. Bloch who says that economy has prioritas and
humanity has primatus. In order to establish socialism, we need to begin with economy but always in view
of obtaining goodness for society. In the same way, Moltmann says that faith has priority, for it comes first,
but hope has primatus because faith has to extend to hope (cf. this thesis. p. 158-159). The rights of the
individual exist first, but they have to be expanded to the rights of humanity; without the rights of the
community of humankind, the rights of individuals will not be protected.
2
3
Ibidem.
4
5
6
There can be conflict between the two rights of individuals and humanity, but the question is to which
extent they can and should yield to one another.
230
3.3.2. The unity of mankind

Why is the theme of the unity of mankind included in Church theology? The
answer is obvious: because all members of the Church belong to society, they constitute
and shape both the Church and human community. The Church and human society
exercise a reciprocal influence on each other.1 Furthermore, the Church lives in the midst
of society and has a mission toward it.
Eschatology relates to hope and has undergone a history in evolution depending
on the existential objects of hope. One can observe that until the sixties, with regard to
eschatology, man had mainly hoped for a private and interior goodness at the end of life.
But since the sixties, when the ‘theology of hope’ included a world well being among the
objects of hope, eschatology is no longer a religious and private sphere, but has now
become a concern for the public. Now a person does not live for himself, but lives with
others. Therefore, the unity of mankind becomes a main concern for human effort and is
an object of hope. The unity of mankind has been often mistakenly understood as the
unity of the living people; however, its correct interpretation should include all human
beings, the dead, the living and also the future generations.
3.3.2.1. The community of the living and the dead

There is communion and solidarity between the living, the dead in purgatory and
the saints in heaven, because all these believers have faith and hope in Jesus Christ.
Moltmann indicates that while those in hell have no hope, those in purgatory have hope;
therefore, with hope, the living can pray for the dead.2 The convincing argument for this
doctrine is more theological than biblical. However, the biblical passages: ‘the gospel is
preached to the dead’ (cf. 1 Peter 4: 6) and ‘Christ went to preach to the spirits in prison’
(cf. 1 Peter 3:19) are very supportive.
The theological argument is Christological. It is Jesus Christ who gives the living
and the dead a reason to remain in communion. “Through Christ’s resurrection, God has
thrown open the future to everyone, the living and the dead. The living maintain their
1
The World Council of Churches states: “The renewal of humankind towards true community, and the
renewal of the Church into unity are not identical realities, but the renewal of human community helps the
Church to be renewed into unity, and the renewal of the Church into unity is one decisive factor needed if
human community is to be truly renewed in accord with the will of God” (T. F. BEST (ed.), Faith and
Renewal. Commission on Faith and Order, Geveva: WCC, 1986, p. 171).
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The coming God, p. 97-98; The Way of Jesus Christ, p. 191.
231
community with the dead, for in the community of Christ the dead are not forgotten; they
are present.”1 The communion between Christ and these believers, whether they are in
heaven, in purgatory or living, brings them together. They all belong to the Body of
Christ; they all belong to the people of God; they are all waiting for the general
resurrection and the final judgment; they have faith and hope in Jesus Christ; they are all
waiting for the parousia. Moltmann says: “the notion of the continuance of bodiless souls
does not satisfy our search for a fellowship with the dead whom we have loved body and
soul. But the idea of an enduring communion between the living and the dead in Christ,
and of the community of Christ as a communion of the living and the dead is a good and
necessary one.”2
The death of Jesus has a double effect: the vicarious suffering for the dead, i.e.
Jesus dies for the dead;3 and solidarity with the dead through his death. “Through his
death, he (Jesus Christ) also became the brother and deliverer of those who have died.”4
Death cannot separate the dead from Jesus because his saving potentiality goes beyond
death. Furthermore, the notion of the universality of the kingdom of God embraces all
generations: the ancestor and the living.5 Moltmann approves the rite of ‘ancestor
worship’. This rite is worthwhile because it expresses the communion between the dead
and the living: “The dead participate in their own way in the life of the community, and
the living lead their lives in the presence of the dead, who are present among the living as
their ‘ancestors’.”6 Moltmann says that “the most efficacious help, however, is the
celebration of the Eucharist on behalf of the dead… The living can intercede for the dead
before God, and the saints can intercede for the living, and can be asked for their
intercession.”7 In this sense, Moltmann’s view is more Roman Catholic than the teaching
of Reformed Protestantism, which condemned the doctrine of purgatory.8 He also
approves the Roman Catholic Church’s ‘Holy Saturday mysticism’ with regard to the
1
Ibid., p.189.
2
J. MOLTMANN, The coming God, p. 98.
3
The vicarious effect of the death of Jesus is evident; we have already studied this subject at other places,
such as in the section of ‘justification’.
4
5
Ibid., p.190.
6
Ibidem. We cannot forget the dilemma regarding Chinese ancestor rites, which were condemned by the
Dominicans but supported by the Jesuits during the early time of evangelisation in Asia.
7
J. MOLTMANN, The coming God, p. 98.
8
Cf. ibid., p. 100; The Way of Jesus Christ, p.269.
232
memory of the dead, which commemorates Jesus’ death between Good Friday and Easter
Sunday. Moltmann says that “there is no real antithesis between Christ’s ‘descent into
hell’ and his ‘descent into the realm of death’.”1
Death cannot separate us from God’s love (cf. Rom. 8:38) and this love goes
beyond death. The living and the dead still love one another. The dead still need love, and
they are waiting for righteousness, i.e. the general resurrection and the final judgment, so
that they will be reunited with God and with the living. In this context, hope for human
society entails the communion between succeeding generations.2
3.3.2.2. The community of generations

The traditional image of the Church is that it consists of individuals who have
social or ecclesial ties. This image is more correct in industrial countries. However, we
should think of another image of the Church, which consists of families, in which three or
four generations live together. This image is found in the Old Testament and in the
developing countries today in Africa, Asia, the Pacific and South America. This ‘family
image’ of the Church yields many practical advantages. We can say that each family is a
Church community, a ‘base community’, in which there is a passing on of faith and
religious practices from one generation to the next. In this sense, there is a mutual
benefit: the family strengthens the larger Church community, and the common practice of
faith in each family strengthens the family itself.3
In this context, if we consider the Church community or the parish as a large
family, in which different generations share and participate in communal life, there will
be a great benefit for the Church. The older generation passes on faith and religious
practices to the younger ones. The younger generation will look up to the older one with
respect and admiration. There will be a spirit of love and solidarity. In fact, with this
family spirit, all members of the Church community, even among those of the same
generation, will experience a fraternal bond; all will feel like brothers and sisters.
Furthermore, within the spirit of transmission from one generation to another, it is also
necessary that one generation let the other take on responsibility for particular aspect of
1
Ibid., p.190-191.
2
Cf. ibid., p.192.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Spirit of Life, p. 236; The Source of Life, p. 97.
233
community life. In other words, one generation cannot forever hold on to responsibility
for Church life.1
Living together as a family does not mean a life without difficulty; on the
contrary, “whenever people live together there are conflicts.”2 In each community, it
requires trust in order to overcome conflicts and difficulty. In reality, Moltmann says that
in a large family of three or four generations, it is easier to solve problems: “In the large
families of earlier ties, when four generations lived together under one roof, people were
bound to come to terms with [this] conflict.”3
From this concept of ‘the community of generations’ of the Church, we can also
draw an application in the community of civil society. There will be another dimension to
the unity of mankind when we consider the human community, as the community of
families, in which there is a bond and collaboration between generations. The unity of
mankind does not entail only people of the same period of time, but also generations of
longitudinal sections of times. From this perspective, the unity of mankind will foresee
the future of its existence and survival.
In family, there is a non-written contract, which decrees that parents take care of
their small children, and children look after their elderly parents. On a larger scale, the
working generation takes care of the elderly generation and prepares the generation of
children for the future of the human family. In other words, there is responsibility among
generations. In order to have good conditions for the present generation and future
generations, the human family needs to conduct a just distribution of opportunities for
different generations. The present generation has to see that it does not use up natural
resources that future generations also need. The present generation should not pile up
debt for the next generations to pay off.4 This is the generational contract that needs to be
observed by the human family. On the contrary, “if a society no longer lives in the
coherent structure of succeeding generations, but is now only aware of the social cross-
currents with contemporaries, brothers and sisters, comrades and friends, that society is
breaking ‘the generation contract’ which is the only thing that guarantees the survival of
1
Cf. ibid., p. 98; The Spirit of Life, p. 237.
2
Ibid., p. 238.
3
Cf. ibid., p. 237.
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, La giustizia crea futuro, p. 20-22.
234
humanity.”1 When the human family of generations takes hope as its motivation, it will
foresee the well being of future generations, for hope points to the future.2
3.3.2.3. The Church and the unity of mankind

We have seen in many places in this research that Israel and the Church do not
exist for their own sakes, but have to orient themselves towards the kingdom of God,
which will include all humanity. When considering the Church in view of the kingdom,
we are necessarily concerned with humanity, which needs unity too. Therefore, the
Church must always remember that it has a mission for the unity of mankind. In this
sense, Moltmann says: “The messianic hope which Jews and Christians received together
but have experienced differently was given to them not for their own benefit, but for
abandoned humanity.”3
Furthermore, because the unity of the Church is a confessional mark, by which
the world may believe (John 17: 21), when the Church is striving for its own unity it also
endeavors for the unity of mankind. For Moltmann, the unity of mankind has its
foundation not only in the mission of the Church but also in its own Christological
vocation. According to the will of God all humanity is called to unite in the fellowship of
Jesus Christ.4 Furthermore, the unity of the Church must necessarily translate into the
unity of mankind, for the Church is a confessing Church. In other words, the Church
confesses its unity to the world through its active involvement in the world. In this sense,
Moltmann says: “As a unifying force, the Church is the messianic people of Christ, for
unity is not merely an attribute of the Church; it is the Church’s task in the world as well.
If the assembled Church is the confessing Church, then it will represent the unity in
Christ and the Spirit that makes all things new in the midst of the conflicts of its social
and political situation.”5
1
2
Cf. ibid., p. 269-270.
3
J. MOLTMANN, “Messianic Hope in Christianity”, p.160. Moltmann uses the term abandoned humanity
which has a pessimistic connotation, i.e. the human community is not yet in complete unity, it is still
orienting itself towards the kingdom of God; therefore, Israel and the Church exist for and serve the unity
of mankind.
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Holy Spirit, p. 347.
5
Ibid., p. 345.
235
Therefore, the Church can work for the unity of mankind only through engaging
in the political, social and economic life of people.1 Through this engagement, the Church
will bring about a better fellowship among people, who indeed have the right to
participate in the fellowship of Jesus Christ. In this sense, unity in Jesus Christ is
implemented in a concrete way, i.e., through the concrete actions of the Church in the
world. Moltmann explains further: “The unity of Christ, which must not be divided, is not
only unity with his disciples and the fellowship of believers but, based on that, is also his
unity and fellowship with the oppressed, humiliated and forsaken.”2
3.3.3. The question of theodicy

The question of theodicy is still valid today and will never become obsolete; so
long as people still believe in, hope in and anticipate their resurrection and wait for the
fulfillment of the kingdom of God, they will continue to pose these questions: “Why
inhuman men fare so well and their victims fare so badly?”3 Where does suffering come
1
The Church and its members can promote the well being of humankind through twofold involvements. It
can “initiate action for the benefit of all men… It shows to the world that social and exterior union comes
from a union of hearts and minds, from faith and love by which its own indissoluble unity has been
founded in the Holy Spirit. The impact which the Church can have on modern society amounts to an
effective living of faith and love, not to any external power exercised by purely human means”(VATICAN II,
Gaudium et Spes, n. 42).
2
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Holy Spirit, p. 345. As I judge it, Moltmann does not
insist enough on the point that the unity of mankind can benefit the Church. According to Vatican II, there
is a reciprocal benefit between the unity of the Church and that of humankind. Vatican Council II holds that
the unity of the Church strengthens the unity of humanity: “The union of the family, of man is greatly
consolidated and perfected by the unity which Christ established among the sons of God”(VATICAN II,
Gaudium et Spes. n. 42; cf. Lumen Gentium, n. 9). We should know that the Pastoral Constitution on the
Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes of Vatican Council II also dedicates one section to
acknowledge what the Church receives from the human community: culture, history, development, etc. The
Council says: “Whatever contributes to the development of the community of mankind on the level of
family, culture, economic and social life, and national and international politics, according to the plan of
God, is also contributing in no small way to the community of the Church insofar as it depends on things
outside itself” (VATICAN II, Gaudium et Spes, n. 44). According to Metz, the Church does not benefit
passively from society, but benefits directly for the unity of the Church through active involvement in
promoting the unity of mankind. The unity of mankind is not a post-ecumenical task; it is not a
consequence of the unity of the Church, but rather the Church has to work both for its own unity as well as
for the unity of mankind at the same time. Metz argues that the Church cannot be united if there is no unity
of mankind at the same time. Each denominational Church today needs to have a two directional dialogue:
with other Churches and with the world. The evangelical message concerns both Christian unity and world
unity. Therefore, the Church has to become directly involved in world affairs in order to promote the unity
of the human community. Metz writes: “Not division between Christians but the divisiveness of the world
in itself strikes one as the primary demand now made by the evangelical message of the unity and
reconciliation of all men in Jesus Christ”(J. B. METZ, “Does Our Church Need a New Reformation? A
Catholic Reply” in Concilium 4, 1970, p. 81-91, at 87).
3
J. MOLTMANN, The Crucified God, p.179.
236
from? Because suffering and injustice in the world are evident and unacceptable, and
people cannot find a solution to them, they take recourse in God. Can God help them? In
other words, if God is righteous why is there so much suffering in the world?
3.3.3.1. The origin of suffering

The question of theodicy is a topic that is already raised in Scripture, particularly
in the story of Job, by the Fathers of the Church, such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen,
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Augustine, etc. and many theologians such as K. Barth, E.
Jüngel, D. Bonhoeffer, etc.1 For the so called ‘school of hope’ which consists, among
others, of three great theologians: Moltmann, Metz and Pannenberg, theodicy is one of
the main topics of their theology of hope, since the event of Auschwitz runs through their
theological reflections.2
Because human suffering is at the heart of the subject of despair or hope and if
Moltmann’s theology is a theology of hope, then he cannot but raise the question of its
origin and nature attempting to find a solution to it. Human beings have to face suffering
and death, which is often explained as a mystery in life. But because it is a mystery, man
can fall into despair due to too much suffering. Scripture and theologians have tried to
interpret the cause and meaning of suffering in order to offer hope to suffering
individuals and the human community.
According to Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, death
and suffering belong to the nature of finite beings, and they are not consequences of sin
or divine punishment. They also add that Jesus Christ has already redeemed us from sin
and overcome death and led us from mortal being to immortal being. On the contrary, St.
Paul says: “for the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus
our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). Augustine and the Latin Fathers, following the Pauline doctrine,
argue that suffering and death are divine punishment for human sin. They also say that
Jesus Christ has forgiven our sin through grace and overcome the consequences of sin,
which are suffering and death.3
1
Cf. J. B. METZ, A Passion for God, New York / Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1998, p. 69; J. MOLTMANN,
The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, p. 50.
2
Cf. R. J. BAUCKHAM, Moltmann Messianic Theology in the Making, p. 5.
3
J. MOLTMANN, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, p. 49-50.
237
Moltmann, basing himself on the Old Testament, attributes the cause of suffering
to sin, as St. Augustine and the Latin Fathers did. Misery is inherent in sin. Whoever sins
against God suffers misery; however, he does not merit punishment, but compassion. Up
until now, we have talked about suffering that is not obviously caused by human beings.
The other kind of suffering is the suffering caused by evil, the suffering that
people do to one another. However, although the connection between evil acts and
suffering is clear, it is limited. We cannot say that if a person does not sin, he does not
cause suffering to others. Moltmann asserts that if human beings and the world are open
to good and evil, then they are also capable of producing suffering.1
Given all this, it is still hard to explain the misery and evil that the innocent, the
righteous, the poor and children have to suffer. These people may have to suffer unjustly
the evil acts committed by evildoers. But do these innocent people merit this misery?
Moltmann wants to answer the question: what will God do for his suffering people? He
believes that God is in solidarity with them. Bauckham clearly summarizes Moltmann’s
idea as to how God can share solidarity with suffering people: “Hence it is
understandable only in a Trinitarian context as an event between Jesus the incarnate Son
and his Father, an event of divine suffering in which Jesus suffers dying in abandonment
by his Father and the Father suffers in grief the death of his Son. As such it is the act of
divine solidarity with the godforsaken world, in which the Son willingly surrenders
himself in love for the world and the Father willingly surrenders his Son in love for the
world.”2 Furthermore, Moltmann says that there is a relationship between suffering and
love. Wherever there is love, suffering shows up. It is because of love that suffering is
perceived. ‘Innocent suffering’ is the suffering of those who love as well as of those who
are loved. Those who love cannot but suffer with those who suffer. The suffering of one
person becomes the suffering of two.3
1
Cf. ibid., p. 50-51.
2
R. BAUCKHAM, The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995. p. 88.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, p. 51-52.
238
3.3.3.2. Solutions to suffering

Evil and suffering exist de facto. Throughout the history of theology and
philosophy, there have been diverse propositions; we also find strong indications in
Scripture. Moltmann too proposes an explanation.
3.3.3.2.1. Philosophical and traditional theological propositions

Stoic philosophers already attempted to explain the dilemma of theodicy. They
argued that there are only two possibilities: 1) God wants to prevent evil, but he cannot;
2) He can prevent the evil, but he does not want. In the first case, God is good, but not
omnipotent; in the second case, he is omnipotent, but not good.1 However, in either case,
the question of theodicy remains unanswered.
We also find three other solutions: 1) The dualistic theory which, originated from
Parseeism and Manichaeism, and flourished in Jewish and Christian apocalyptics,
considers good and evil as two opposing forces in the world. The good comes from God,
while the evil comes from God’s adversary. There is a struggle between these two
opposing forces, but man has to take sides for the good. 2) The monistic theory affirms
that only good exists. Evil “is a deficiency of being or an annihilation of being. It has no
quality of being but is the negation of being.”2 3) The theory which, appeared in Jewish
and Christian belief and developed in German dialectical idealism, argues that evil can
serve the good when the good is tested by going through the negative in order to prove its
quality. St. Irenaeus and St. Augustine combine the second and the third theories and say
that God created only good, while the evil is the absence of good. Moral evils are caused
by human beings. But God allows physical evil to exist as means of education for man.3
3.3.3.2.2. Scripture and the question of theodicy

Other than drawing indications of the themes of God’s suffering and justification
from Scripture, Moltmann also exposes the biblical themes of the sources of suffering of
man. The books of Job, Lamentations and the Psalms, as well as the passion narratives of
the Synoptic Gospels, tell the stories and events of suffering from the existential
viewpoint, i.e. from the experiences man has of God.
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, History of the Triune God, p. 26.
2
Ibid., p. 27.
3
Cf. ibid., p. 26-28.
239
First of all, evil is due to evildoers. It is divine justice that evildoers merit the
consequences of the evil acts they perform. God allows the consequences of evil acts to
take place, but He is not responsible for the evil acts of human beings. Moltmann refers
to Scripture, particularly the historical books of the Old Testament, the Gospel of
Matthew and the Pauline, which indicates that “anyone who forsakes God is forsaken by
God.”1
Secondly, with regard to the suffering of the righteous, the history of Job shows
that it is hard to find the answer to the suffering of the righteous, which is often
unsupportable. We know that the consequences of evil acts caused by evildoers cannot be
examined here. We have recourse to Rom. 9: 20 which indicates that God’s action is
unfathomable, and the question of theodicy remains a mystery.2
3.3.3.2.3. Theodicy and hope

Why does man turn to God to find the answer to this problem? According to
Moltmann, man has consciousness of evil and suffering only because he has a longing for
God: “If there were no God, the world as it is would be all right. It is only the desire, the
passion, the thirst for God which turns suffering into conscious pain and turns the
consciousness of pain into a protest against suffering.”3 Because man is conscious of
suffering and is not able to solve the problem, he cries out to God for consolation or other
solutions. In other words, “it is in suffering that the whole human question about God
arises; for incomprehensible suffering calls the God of men and women into question.”4
Suffering men and women call on God in order to find not only an explanation of
suffering but also consolation and solution: “Life in this world means living with this
open question, and seeking the future in which the desire for God will be fulfilled,
suffering will be overcome, and what has been lost will be restored”.5
Hope in Moltmann’s theology is founded on the history of Jesus, who suffered the
death on the Cross but was raised by the Father, who kept his promises to his people.
Furthermore, the death of Jesus on the Cross will remain a mystery and the question ‘My
1
Ibid., p. 27.
2
Cf. ibidem.
3
J. MOLTMANN, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, p. 48; cf. History of the Triune God, p. 26.
4
J. MOLTMANN, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, p. 47.
5
Ibid., p. 49.
240
God, why…?’ will not find an answer if its intent is not that Jesus and God may share
their solidarity with the suffering of human beings. “The question of the dying of Jesus…
will only be adequately met and find its redeeming answer (or resolution) in the parousia
of the Risen One, and in his kingdom, in which God will finally ‘wipe away every tear
from their eyes’ (Rev. 21: 4).”1
Moltmann argues that not only does Jesus share in the suffering human
community, but also the Father participates in the suffering of his Son and human beings.
Therefore, Moltmann tries to involve the God of the Trinity in the history of God’s
dealing with the world in view of answering the crucial question of the meaning of
human suffering and death. Indeed, the object or the destiny of hope is human beings
who suffer and often become desperate. In order to solve the problem of theodicy,
Moltmann constructs a parallel between Jesus and man. Jesus’ Cross and resurrection are
two totally contradictory realities, but they happened to the same Jesus. The
discontinuities took place in continuity. Jesus’ history is not a private history involving
only one person but engages all human beings as well as the Triune God.
First of all, Moltmann argues that it happened between the Persons of God. If
there is unity in God the Trinity, then the Father too has to suffer with His Son. He terms
this reality ‘the suffering God’, ‘the suffering between God and God’, or ‘the suffering in
God’. The Father abandoned His forsaken Son and suffered with Him, but then raised
him up and was present with His risen Son. In order to remain faithful to his people, the
Father allowed happening what happened to Jesus.
What happened to Jesus is the protocol for human beings. Moltmann sees the
reality of human suffering and asks how to bring hope to the desperate human
community. In doing so he has to bring to light the active role of God in the history of
man’s suffering. God is love and is always faithful to his promise of protecting his people
and making them happy. If God is not idle in the face of human suffering, then where is
he? What is he doing for his people? Moltmann uses the eschatological reality, which
already began in Jesus to interpret human suffering and death. He develops a parallel of
dialectical events happening to Jesus and to man. Jesus suffered and died, so man suffers
and dies; but Jesus was raised up; so will man be raised up. If man understands this and
1
241
believes it, then he will be able to understand his suffering and death. The history of Jesus
and the destiny of human beings can run this course only because God the Father is
involved in their histories by suffering along with them. He chooses to do so because he
is faithful to his people.1
However, not all members of the ‘school of hope’ agree with Moltmann. J. B.
Metz considers Moltmann’s approach to ‘the suffering God and ‘the suffering between
God and God’ as too speculative. Here is what Metz retorts: “I cannot follow this
approach [Moltmann’s]. What I see in these worthy attempts is too much of a response,
soothing the eschatological questioning of God. Is there not in them still too much of a
speculative, almost Gnostic reconciliation with God behind the back of the human history
of suffering? And do not these ways of responding underestimate the negative mystery of
human suffering that will not allow itself to be harmonized under any other name?”2
According to Metz, the other aspect of Moltmann’s theodicy is correct: the death and
resurrection of Jesus brings about the reconciliation of the world, and thus will solve the
problem of evil and suffering in the world. However, Moltmann has a problem of
engaging the subject of God’s suffering within God. The question is whether the problem
of theodicy can be solved by the history of Jesus, which is the protocol for human history.
Furthermore, according to Moltmann, in order for us to find the answers to the
question regarding suffering and death, we do not need to pose the question whether or
not God exists, but we just need to look at Jesus Christ. He was condemned unjustly by
those who considered him a blasphemer against the law. He was crucified unjustly, but
the just God raised him up to protest the injustice people meted out to him.
Correspondingly, if the just God has corrected the injustice connected to the death of
Jesus, in the same way, he will do justice to the just and the unjust. 3 Furthermore, God
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, History of the Triune God, p. 27-28.
2
Cf. J. B. METZ, A Passion for God, p. 69-70. In line with Metz, P. Tillich disapproves the patripassianism:
“God himself is said to participate in the negativities of creaturely existence. This idea is supported by
mystical as well as by Christological thought. Nevertheless, the idea must be stated with reservations.
Genuine partripassianism (the doctrine that God the Father suffered in Christ) was rightly rejected by the
early Church” (P. TILLICH, Systematic Theology, vol. I, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1951, p.
270). In my view, in the light of the text of the Council of Rome which in 382 condemned the
patripassianism (see this thesis, p. 40), Metz and Tillich missed the point of the text, which affirms the
suffering of Jesus, but does not deny the suffering of God the Father, as the text shows.
3
According to Pannenberg, Jesus’ death and resurrection already perfectly solves the question; however,
the answer to the question is post-creative. In other words, if we return to the creation ex nihilo, we cannot
242
will judge justly, not to condemn, but, with mercy, to make right all peoples and all
situations. In this sense, the question of theodicy is answered by the question of
justification: forgiveness is the answer to sin, healing is the answer to sickness, and
resurrection is the answer to death.1 In practice, if we have to wait for God to ultimately
show his justice, we cannot but work for justice now, for we anticipate this justice
without resting idle in face of the injustice happening in the world.2
In conclusion, the problem of evil and suffering will remain unanswered;
however, we know that God cannot be author of what is bad and evil, as Clement of
Alexandria affirms: “Now the devil, being possessed of free will, as able to repent and to
steal; and it was he who was the author of the theft, not the Lord, who did not prevent
him… So in no respect is God the author of evil.”3 St. Augustine says: “Who will dare
to believe or say that it was not in God’s power to prevent both angels and men from
sinning? But God preferred to leave this in their power, and thus to show both what evil
could be wrought by their pride, and what good by His grace.”4
But Moltmann does not stop here. His purpose is to lead to liberating praxis: “In
the experience of God’s love the sufferer recovers his sense of human worth and the hope
which maintain his protest against suffering and enables him to resist its dehumanizing
power… The protest of the crucified God is the protest of love which always takes the
side of the victims of injustice, and therefore it leads believers in the crucified God into
liberating praxis on their behalf. By keeping the theodicy question alive and open, the
crucified God leads into concrete struggles for justice and liberation from suffering.” 5
help raising another question as to why God has allowed evil and suffering in the world from the beginning
of creation while he is omnipotent and merciful. As Pannenberg writes: “The problem is unavoidably much
more pressing for Christian thinking, which believes in the one God as the God of world-reconciling love.
True, the message of the reconciliation of the world by the death of Christ is itself an answer to the
presence of evil and wickedness in the world. But if God is the God of reconciliation is the same as the
Creator…, why, then, did he ever permit wickedness and evil at all?”(W. PANNENBERG, Systematic
Theology, vol. 3, p. 632-633). Along this line, we should content with the answer that our hope in the future
which will be better than present, is the answer for the suffering and evil we have to endure, as St. Paul
says: “I consider that the sufferings of this present time are as nothing compared with the glory to be
revealed for us… For creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because the one who
subjected it, in hope that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the
glorious freedom of the children of God” (Rom. 8: 18,20-21).
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, History of the Triune God, p. 28.
2
J. MOLTMANN, The Crucified God, p. 179-182.
3
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Strom. 1: 17.
4
AUGUSTINE, Civ. Dei, 14: 27.
5
R. BAUCKHAM, The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann. p. 90; cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Crucified God, p. 47-52.
243
Finally, the ultimate solution for the problem of suffering has to wait for the
eschaton as Baukcham says: “The protest against God is valid and can only be answered
when God fulfils his promises and finally overcomes all evil and suffering.”1 In fact, we
will have to wait until on the last day when death and suffering will be definitely
conquered; however, while waiting and anticipating that day, we cannot remain idle but
become active in service for justice, as Moltmann says: “The theodicy question must
become a question of the future, and from the future we can expect the advent of a new
creation of God, and in this expectation we can actively try to change the present, to that
our world becomes transformed into the recognizable world of God, and our sinful
humanity into the recognizable humanity before God.”2
3.3.4. The Church and the suffering world

Understanding the dialectic of cross and resurrection leads to understanding the
Church’s participation in the dialectic of joy and suffering in the world. Moltmann tries
to understand the Church within the divine history of God’s involvement with the world.
If the center of God’s relationship with the world is the cross and resurrection, suffering
and joy is the reality in the relationship between the Church and the world.
The cause of all problems in society today, whether in politics, economics or
culture, derives from the loss of the true meaning of suffering. If people in Western
countries can conquer human suffering (or at least appear to), they lose their sympathy
for those who still suffer. In reality there is no real conquest of suffering, but there is only
a shift of suffering. In times of colonialism, when the colonizers used the resources of the
less developed countries to improve the life of their own countries, they inflicted
suffering on their colonies: “Discovery has meant more than merely finding something
that has been hidden; it has always meant taking possession of what is new.”3 Today
there is another form of colonialism. In the name of technology, rich countries benefit
enormously from the technological products they export to poor countries and become
richer, while the poor get poorer. “Economic progress is always unequal: the progress of
the one is at the expense of others. The differences between poor and rich are growing.”4
1
R. BAUCKHAM, The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann, p. 90.
2
3
4
Ibid., p. 228.
244
It is another form of conquest, but along the same lines: Taking possession of what is
good and as consequence inflicting suffering on the poor. J. Moltmann describes this
strategy of the new colonialism in these words: “European world conquest still always
follows the same lines: first come the ethnologists, then Coca Cola; first exploration, then
domination, then marketing.”1 When the burden of life is shifted from one group of
people towards other groups, there is not a real conquest of suffering. In other words, the
real problem here originates from avoiding suffering, because avoiding suffering means
shifting suffering, and its consequence is losing the meaning of suffering and feeling for
those who suffer. Therefore, “if humanity wants a common future, and if people are not
to bring one another suffering and death, then the people who are now capable of acting
must rediscover the meaning of suffering. It is only the dignity of solidarity in suffering
which makes people capable of fellowship.”2
One of many aspects of the Church’s mission is willingness to bear suffering in
the name of Christ. The foundation of this mission is mentioned in Hebrews 13:13: “Let
us then go to him outside the camp, bearing the reproach that He (Christ) bore.” The
Church is not for herself, but is in the world and for the world. The Church must not wait
for another world nor avoid the suffering of this world, but rather accept it here and now.
Suffering in the world thus becomes the suffering of the Church. In fact, the Reformation
considered suffering as the nature of the Church: “The ‘hidden Church’… is not found in
its invisibility, transcendence, inwardness or spirituality, but rather in its form of
suffering.”3
The suffering of the world is the suffering of God, because He is passionate and
wants to take the suffering of the world on Himself and He does that with the suffering of
Christ. This is suffering out of love. Thus when the Church suffers with and for the
world, the Church suffers for and with God. The Church does not expect to be an
institution that can wipe out suffering nor does it avoid the reality of suffering but should
communicate hope to society.4 The Church also, “with its love in service, stands in the
1
Ibid., p. 225.
2
3
J. MOLTMANN, Hope And Planning, p. 147.
4
Cf. ibid., p. 150.
245
midst of the cross of society and, thereby, becomes this hope for society, a hope which is
responsible for the present.”1
“The Gospel says that the divine Word and its eternal Wisdom became flesh in
Jesus and lived among us (John 1: 14). That is the Shekinah theology of the New
Testament. If God lives among us, God journeys with us, too. If God journeys with us,
God suffers with us as well.”2 Because God lives and suffers with us, this makes us able
to live and suffer with others. In order to do so, we need to welcome other peoples and
receive them as ourselves.3 In this sense, Moltmann says that once we realize that we too
were first alienated from God, but then justified and accepted by God, we will be able to
accept and respect others as they are. Only in the recognition and acceptance of one
another, can we become a new community of varied people and can live together in peace
and justice. “We revere and perceive other people and those who are strange to us when
we stop trying to make them like ourselves, but open ourselves to their particular
character, and transform ourselves, together with them, into a new community of people
who are different from one another. Then the acceptance of others becomes the form that
social justice takes. Of course this presupposes that in our relations to God we know that
we are accepted by God as those who are alienated from God, but who as alien are
justified in God.”4 The Church can bring hope to the human community only if it knows
how to appreciate what God has done for his people in terms of accepting them and
respecting them as individuals with their own characters and personalities, and thus
accepting and respecting other people of different cultures and religions as they are
without trying to transform them into what ‘we are’.
1
Ibid., p. 151.
2
J. MOLTMANN, N. WOLTERSTORFT, E. T. CHARRY, A Passion for God’s Reign, p. 17.
3
E. Levinas also remarks: “I must now welcome the other, giving the other the very home, food, clothing,
etc., that were for my own enjoyment. I suffer to relieve the other’s suffering, and in so doing become
myself in a way that is impossible through my own enjoyable life. Being responsible for others is part of
my being”(E. LEVINAS, Totality and Infinity, USA: Marninus Nijhoff Publishers, 1979. p. 212). My
relationship with the Other is love because there is neither possession, knowing, seizure, nor Apouvoir@
involved. It is love because I do not know who the Other is and do not expect anything in return, nor do I
expect the Other to know me. It is a pure love without premeditation, reference or motive (cf. E. LEVINAS,
Le temps et l=autre, Paris: Quadrige, 1996, 81- 83).
4
J. MOLTMANN, N. WOLTERSTORFT, E. T. CHARRY, A Passion for God’s Reign, p. 18.
246
3.4. Hope for nature

The theme regarding creation has been on the agenda of theological discussions.
Scripture begins with the story of creation, according to which man and other creatures
were created by God. This story of creation reveals not only God as creator and creatures
as created, but also the role of man towards other creatures and nature. Traditionally,
theology explains from this scriptural passage, that human beings are superior to the rest
of creatures and are meant do dominate them. However, recently theology has been
deliberately reconsidering the position of human beings vis-à-vis other creatures. If, in
the past, one focused on the study of the role of man by pointing out what makes man
different from other creatures, today a new approach arises when one tries to exhibit the
relation between human beings and other creatures. This approach is praised by J.
Moltmann who tries to interpret scriptural stories of creation from the viewpoint of
history. For him, creation went through a history in which humanity is only a part of the
whole picture. Other creatures are also essential in this history of creation.1
3.4.1. The crisis of extermination

If the term millenarianism has an eschatological meaning, which designates the
period of the end time, beginning from the ascension of Jesus and lasting to his parousia,
it also means the end time in which the end of the world may happen at any time. In fact,
we are really living in the end time, in which humanity is under the threat of self-
extermination due to a possible nuclear war which may take place when least expected,
or the ecological peril, which is ongoing.
3.4.1.1. Nuclear crisis

We are living in the post era of the so-called cold war; does that mean discussions
about the threat of nuclear war have become obsolete? The answer is that we are always
under the threat of nuclear catastrophe as long as nuclear weapons still exist. In fact, the
nuclear threat is real due to possible accident, or real war between enemy countries.
Furthermore, discussions about nuclear threat are still relevant today because
concepts with regard to this theme have not changed due to the slow development of new
concepts dealing with power, terror and war. Since the event of Hiroshima, we are ever
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, God in Creation, p. 185-186 and 220.
247
aware of the danger of nuclear weapons, but we have not come up with a solution. The
dream of being nuclear weapons free is a dream that has never come true, at least til now.
Therefore, we constantly suffer the threat of destruction from nuclear weapons. If
nuclear war happens, nobody will be able to control the situation and within a few hours
a large part of the human race will perish. We are living in the time of the nuclear end,
i.e. the end-time, in which the end of humanity can take place any time. With the ever
present threat of nuclear weapons, time is limited for humanity. At the same time, with
the experience of Hiroshima, we come to recognize that life is fragile under the threat of
nuclear weapons, and we appreciate life even more. In this sense, from now on, whatever
we do, we give primacy to life.1
Despite the disarmament accords between the USA and the USSR, the threat of
nuclear incident or war is still great. Furthermore, today many nations possess nuclear
weapons, and who will be able to absolutely control these weapons and guarantee peace
in the world? The answer is that only a united humanity can accomplish this task. If
humanity as a whole is the object of nuclear annihilation, we need a united humanity to
say ‘Yes’ to life and ‘No’ to nuclear weapons. Individual nations, various regions have to
subordinate to the ‘organization of nations’ which defends life; ideologies have to yield
to democracy. All nations in the world have to work together for this international
organization which is politically responsible for peace.2
Moltmann mentions two further consequences of nuclear programs. First, those
countries that build nuclear weapons are doing so at the expense of the peoples of the
Third World. Second, nuclear programs, either military or peaceful, cause ecological
problems due to disposal of radioactive waste. Radioactive disposal will remain on earth
for centuries. In conclusion, humanity has to decide to do away with deadly nuclear
technology and programs or we will continue to live under the nuclear threat and are truly
in danger of being totally destroyed.3
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Coming God, p. 204-205
2
Cf. ibid., p. 206.
3
Cf. ibid. p. 207-209.
248
3.4.1.2. The ecological crisis

The ecological crisis is generally understood as the deterioration of environmental
conditions, including the air, the earth and the ocean. However, in a wider sense, it
includes the economic and social environment as well as the anthropological and
theological understanding of man and nature, which cause men to misuse nature.1
The human community is heading towards a catastrophe unless there is a
cessation of the existing disharmony in creation. We are living in a disorder of the
ecological system which is caused by human beings2: the ozone layer of the atmosphere
is being destroyed, soil is becoming infertile due to misuse of chemical fertilizers and
pesticides, changes in world climate are causing natural disasters such as the melting of
the ice in the Arctic and Antarctic, floods and droughts, forest fires, etc. This unfavorable
environment can cause extinction first of the weaker species, then finally of humanity.3
Moltmann acknowledges that in reality the breakdown of the value system and
the lack of meaning of life, at the origin of man’s mistreatment of nature, are deeply
rooted in human society, and, thus, difficult to change. Consequently, they “cannot end
the destruction which they are causing. On the contrary, the destruction of the natural
environment which they have brought about has, in its turn, a destruction retroactive
effect on the societies themselves, evoking a loss of values and crises of meaning.”4
Overpopulation in cities can cause anxieties and aggressions; emotional behavior, moral
codes and convictions about life are affected.5 In other words, the ecological crisis caused
by overpopulation in cities can cause crises in human values. One example: “The result is
that people are becoming increasingly apathetic about the slow death of nature. Even the
human will to live is threatening to swing over into death wish.”6
According to Moltmann, “the ecological crisis is first of all a crisis caused by
Western scientific and technological civilization… That is true. If everyone were to drive
as many cars, and pollute the air with as many toxic emissions, as the Americans and the
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, God in Creation, p. 23-24.
2
Cf. ibid., p. 20.
3
J. MOLTMANN, The Coming God, p. 208-209.
4
J. MOLTMANN, God in Creation, p. 24.
5
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “The Scope of Renewal in the Spirit”, in Ecumenical Review 42, 1990, p. 98-106, at
99.
6
J. MOLTMANN, God in Creation, p. 25. Euthanasia is implicitly criticized. Moltmann is pro-life;
elsewhere, he advocates human rights for the foetus.
249
Germans, humanity would already have suffocated.”1 Due to the development of

technology and the demand of consumption, First World countries have overused raw
materials and caused pollution to the atmosphere of the earth.2
Furthermore, practices in Western countries are influenced by the
misinterpretation of the doctrine of creation. In fact, the crisis of the modern world is
caused by man’s wrong belief that man is supposed to subdue the earth. The biblical
verse (Gen. 1: 28) ‘Be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth’ lays “the intellectual
foundations for today’s ecological crisis: unlimited reproduction, over-population of the
earth, and the subjugation of nature.”3 Therefore, Moltmann thinks that Christian
theology is partly responsible for the ecological crisis of today: “The Christian belief in
creation as it has been maintained in the European and American Christianity of the
Western Churches is therefore not guiltless of the crisis in the world today.”4 In this
sense, Moltmann proposes that we need a theology to establish a new theological doctrine
of creation with the purpose of not only solving the ecological crisis, but also of restoring
harmony to nature. A new theological doctrine of creation would entail three aspects:
coming “to terms critically with its own tradition and the history of its own influence”,
dialoging with “the modern natural sciences and the contemporary philosophy of nature”,
considering nature and creatures as God’s creation instead of ‘nature’ as in the past.
‘God’s creature’ connotes God’s property, while ‘nature’ can be misunderstood as man’s
property.5
Another cause of the usurpation of nature came from the Renaissance and
nominalism, which drove man to acquire maximum power if he wanted to resemble his
God. Therefore, man developed technology and scientific knowledge in order to obtain
power on nature.6
This is also a problem in countries of the Third World where impoverishment
causes overpopulation. “Overpopulation leads to the depletion, not only of all foodstuffs
but of the foundations from which people live. That is why the deserts are spreading more
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Coming God, p. 209.
2
Cf. ibidem.
3
4
Ibid., p. 21; cf. “The Scope of Renewal in the Spirit”, p. 99.
5
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, God in Creation, p. 21. It is clear that Vatican Council II did not give due
consideration to the theme of ecology and the theology of nature.
6
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, God in Creation, p. 26-27
250
quickly in the poverty-stricken countries than anywhere else.”1 The world market
compels poor countries to abandon their own subsistence, to sell their means of
production, to cut down their rain forests. More specifically, because there is no world-
wide economic justice through a democratization of economy, there is a growing
exploitation and indebtedness of the Third World countries, which compels people there
to destroy their natural resources.2 Furthermore, in poor countries there is, typically, large
scale social injustice and violence, which causes those who are unjustly treated, in their
turn, to justify their unjust treatment towards other weaker living creatures.3
Therefore, “both worlds, the industrial world and the Third World, are caught up
in a vicious circle in which nature is destroyed.”4 It is now urgent to implement
resolutions for eliminating poverty in Third World countries and restricting the overuse
of natural resources. There is a need to establish a just system of economy in the world;
in this way the countries of the Third World will not be forced to misuse their natural
resources.
Modern industrialization and the globalization practiced through domination,
exploitation and marketing of natural resources, coupled with bioethical science, are
damaging the environment and the living conditions of humanity.5
3.4.2. The theology and philosophy of creation

Realizing that the survival of humankind as a whole is under threat due to
disharmony on earth caused by human beings, we are called to find a possible solution.
Otherwise, extinction will not spare first wildlife, weaker creatures, and then, as a
consequence humanity as a whole. Moltmann points out the causes of this disharmony
and proposes a possible method for solution. According to Moltmann, the Church needs
to return to traditional philosophy, which recognizes the importance of the harmony of all
forces of creatures, i.e. the harmony between human beings, animals and the rest of
nature. In the same direction, theology needs to include nature among its subjects because
1
Ibid., p. 210.
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Human Rights, the Rights of Humanity and the Rights of Nature”, p.129; “The Scope
of Renewal in the Spirit”, p. 99.
3
4
Ibidem.
5
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Science and Wisdom” in Theology Today 58, 2001, p. 155-164, at 162-164;
“Reconciliation with Nature”, p. 303-304.
251
God included nature in his divine plan of creation. Thus, the Church is called to reform
its theology. Theology should not separate nature from God, but is concerned with both
humanity and nature, for not only human beings, but also all nature, is a creation of God.
This theological reformation presupposes a spiritual and cultural conversion, which takes
root in a religious experience of God and nature.1
3.4.2.1. Creatio continua and creatio nova

According to Moltmann, the term creation in German Schöpfung means a
completed process of creation with its final result. But if we look at creation from the
context of creation history and in view of the kingdom, we will see that creation can
includes three stages in one history of creation: creation in the beginning, creation in
history, and creation in the End-time. Indeed, “creation in the beginning points beyond
itself to the history of promise given with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This history of
promise points to the messianic history of the Gospel of Christ, and both point to the
coming kingdom which will renew heaven and earth.”2
If the coming kingdom will be a renewal of heaven and earth, then creation in the
beginning was not the final form, but is in motion toward the kingdom. The first creation
is set in motion and God gives it direction. It is open to new possibilities. In other words,
the first creation or creation at the beginning is an open system, which in itself does not
have a foundation, goal and equilibrium, but whose future is decided by external agents,
which are God and human beings. Because it is an open system and depends partially on
human beings (it also depends on God), it is open either to a possible perdition or
consummation.3 In line with the direction of the creation in the beginning, the present
creation is also open to its future. Indeed, because God created the world not in time, but
with time, creation is subject to change and is open to the future. Moltmann says: “If we
keep in view the goal of creation’s history, we can discern in the created world the real
promises of the kingdom of glory. The present world is a symbol of its future. By virtue
of its transcendence, all created things point beyond themselves. Because of its non-
identity, created beings are open for their future truth.”4 However, future truth here does
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “La société moderne a-t-elle un avenir?” in Concilium 227, 1990, p. 59-70.
2
3
Cf. ibid., p. 206.
4
Ibid., p. 56; cf. The Coming God, p. 264.
252
not mean a restitutio in integrum, a return to the original state of the creation. According
to Moltmann, the idea of a return to “the original paradisal condition of creation (status
integritatis - the state of virgin purity) can neither be called biblical nor Christian.”1 In
this sense, there was no perfection or equilibrium in the creation in the beginning. This is
Moltmann’s idea. He indicates that the phrase “God saw how good it was” in the first
story of creation does not mean a condition of perfection and immutability of creation
without a future. In fact, in Hebrew, ‘very good’ means fitting, appropriate, and
corresponding to the Creator’s will.2 In this context, evolutionary theories do not
contradict the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo because they agree with the doctrine creatio
continua. Creation continues anew. “We therefore perceive that creation is aligned
towards history, but that, all the same, its ultimate meaning is not that it provides a
theatre for God’s history with all men and women; for the ultimate meaning of history
itself is to be found in the new, consummated creation. Creation in the beginning is
therefore certainly open for salvation history; but salvation history, for its part, exists for
the sake of the new creation.”3
Moltmann refutes the theory that considers creatio continua as nothing other than
the continuous sustaining and preserving of creation that relies on the existing
contingencies of creation. On the contrary, he holds that “in prophetic theology, the
creative acts of God in history are discerned in the unexpected ‘new thing’ of liberation
and salvation (cf. Isa. 43:18f). Here God’s historical activity is directed, not towards the
preservation in which creation will be consummated. It is not merely creatio continua. It
is at the same time creatio nova.”4 In other words, at its consummation, creation will be
something new, other than creation in the beginning, as Rev. 21:1 indicates: “The first
heaven and the first earth had passed away”. However, it is not quite totally different
from the first creation. “On the contrary, the new creation presupposes the old one; it is
the new creation of all things. ‘Behold, I make all things new’ (cf. Rev. 21:5) means that
nothing passes away or is lost, but that everything is brought back again in new form.”5
1
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Coming God, p. 264.
3
J. MOLTMANN, God in Creation, p. 56
4
Ibid., p. 209.
5
253
If man by nature is open to his complete being, so do other living creatures and
nature. In fact according to the philosophy of hope, men and all creatures are on their way
to their fulfillment, and in anticipating this fulfillment men already behave positively
towards themselves and other creatures. “The cosmic ideas of Christian eschatology are
therefore by no means mythological, but reach forward into the open realm of
possibilities ahead of all reality, give expression to the expectation of the creature for a
nova creatio, and provide a prelude for eternal life, peace and the haven of the
reconciliation of all things. They bring to light not only what future means in man’s
openness towards the world, but also what future means in the world’s openness towards
men” (cf. Rom. 8:20ff.).1
The creatio nova is not an event, but belongs to the whole history of creation. In
this sense, there is a continuation of creatio nova, which ultimately will lead to the
consummation of creation. In other words, creatio nova necessarily anticipates the
consummation of creation. In conclusion, the doctrine of creatio continua entails two
aspects: the preservation of the world God has created ex nihilo and the innovation of
creation in view of its completion.2
3.4.2.2. God’s immanence in creation: God’s house

Moltmann develops a theology of creation basing himself on Trinitarian theology.
Proceeding from the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, we see that God created, renews and
preserves creatures in the power of the Spirit. Indeed, “from the time of the original
creation, the Spirit of God has been everywhere present, sustaining, nourishing and
vivifying all things in heaven and on earth. The power and wisdom of the Spirit are at
work in all things and impart to them their existence, their life and their movement.”3
If in the past, theology of creation, which teaching the difference between God
and the world, caused the conquest and exploitation of nature, today “an ecological
doctrine of creation must perceive and teach God’s immanence in the world.”4 This is the
original truth according to the Scriptures. After having created things, God did not leave
1
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, God in Creation, p. 209.
3
J. MOLTMANN, “reconciliation with Nature”, p. 301-313, at 308; cf. “The Cosmic Community; A New
Ecological Concept of Reality in Science and Religion”, in Ching Feng 29, 1986, p. 93-105, at 99.
4
J. MOLTMANN, “The Cosmic Community”, p. 101.
254
them alone, but is present in and with them in the Spirit. Indeed, according to the doctrine
of the Shekinah, God not only accompanies his people but also his other creatures: “The
God who in the Spirit dwells in his creation is present in every one of his creatures and
remains bound to each of them, in joy and sorrow.”1
Rev. 21:1-4 indicates that creation is the house of God and “at the end the whole
world will become the temple into which the glory of God can come and rest.”2 There are
also other scriptural passages, which say that the earth is the house of the Lord: “The
earth is the Lord’s and all it holds, the world and those who live there” (Ps. 24: 1). The
house of God comprises the Church, the land, the space and the whole universe. “Thus
says the Lord: ‘The heavens are my throne, the earth is my footstool. What kind of house
can you build for me? says the Lord. Or what is to be my resting place?’” (Is. 66: 1; Acts
7: 49). “Holy places on this earth are holy only as signposts, pointing to the fact that this
earth itself is holy and must be kept holy. God dwells in space. But the creatively active
God does not find rest anywhere except in the new heaven and the new earth where his
righteousness and justice rules. God sanctifies his whole community of creation through
his indwelling. It is intended to become God’s environment and to participate eternally in
his divine life.”3 God’s indwelling in the cosmos is the source of its hope. Human beings,
as being sanctified by God also give hope to the environment, for they are also part of
nature.
Furthermore, God created the earth and ordains man to cultivate it rightly. In this
sense, man is only a gardener of God’s garden.4 If man understands that the earth belongs
to God and that his role is a steward, he will not overuse the resources of the earth. The
kingdom of God assumes also the welfare of nature because natural resources provide the
source of life. In this sense, if the mission of the Church and Christians is in view of the
kingdom of God, it has to take care not only of human beings but also of nature.
Therefore, from the theological point of view, “it is not the will to power and to dominion
1
Ibid., p. 103.
2
J. MOLTMANN, “reconciliation with Nature”, p. 308; cf. “The Cosmic Community”, p. 99.
3
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, God in Creation, p. 30. Pannenberg combines the first story of creation with the
second story of creation. “The Lord God then took the man and settled him in the Garden of Eden, to
cultivate and care for it” (Gen. 2: 15). “This dominion, then, excludes arbitrary control or exploitation. It is
like the work of a gardener”(W. PANNENBERG, Systematic Theology, vol. 2, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998,
p. 205).
255
over the earth that makes man the image of God, but [that] the very reverse is true:
because man is made in the image of God, his rule over earth has its bounds and its
responsibilities.”1 In this sense, Moltmann writes: “They [men] are also, on their side, the
determining subjects of sanctification. We ‘sanctify’ something when we encounter it
with reverence and view it as uninfringeable, because in it we sense and revere God’s
nearness.”2 Moltmann, therefore, includes the cosmos as the sanctified object on account
of its indwelling place of God. Only if the environment is in peace, will men and women
be able to live in peace with one another. Therefore, it is right to study the subject of hope
for the cosmic world both from the theological and ecological as well as sociological
viewpoints.
A different view of creation must be considered. All human beings with other
living creatures and nature must be considered as God’s creation. God’s created things
are both nature and God’s creation. As Gen. 9:9-10 indicates (See, I am now establishing
my covenant with you and your descendants after you and with every living creatures),
by virtue of God’s creation, nature has its own right of existence, of peace and survival.
Therefore, “living beings are God’s covenant partners. All living beings must be
respected by humanity as God’s partners in covenant. Whoever destroys nature, destroys
him/herself. Whoever injures the dignity of animals, injures God.”3 The rights and
dignity of human beings are related to the rights and dignity of other living creatures. In
fact, human rights cannot be realized without the existence of the rights of other
creatures. This argument is logical because human rights involve the inviolate natural
environment, which includes respect for animals and the rest of creatures. In other words,
if the rights of nature are violated, human rights are violated. Thus men must respect
God’s creation. Because human beings and other living creatures belong to one
community created by God, they belong to one community; they need other creatures and
must respect them.4 Human beings often reserve dignity to themselves. According to
tradition one speaks merely of human dignity. However, if other living creatures also
belong to God’s creation, they have their own dignity. In other words, all species and
1
2
3
J. MOLTMANN, “reconciliation with Nature”, p. 309.
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “La société moderne a-t-elle un avenir? ”, p. 67-68; God in Creation, p. 21.
256
nature have the right to exist on their own terms. In this regard, J. Moltmann and E.
Giesser say: “Human rights must be adjusted to the rights of nature, from which, with
which and in which men live. Human dignity does not only raise man over other living
beings, but at the same time also binds him to the dignity of all other living creatures,
speaking as a Christian, it’s the dignity of each creature of God. Human dignity can be
realized by human rights not at the expense of the rights of nature and other living
creatures, but only in unison with them.”1
Moltmann’s cry for the protection of nature is supported on theological grounds,
which considers the earth as the blessed property of God. Therefore, he insists on the
necessity of defending all created things “against the arbitrary manipulation of life and
the destruction of the earth through personal and institutionalized acts of violence.”2
Moltmann argues that since the earth is created by God and sanctified by God and is
where God dwells, man does not have authority to damage it. On the contrary, man has a
duty to respect it because it is the property of God: “Men and women can only treat what
belongs to God with reverence and solicitude. If they respect God’s right of ownership to
the earth, then their own rights consist simply of the right to use it. But use must preserve
the integrity of property which isn’t one’s own.”3
3.4.2.3. Human beings in the world

Scripture says: “God blessed them (men and women), saying: ‘Be fertile and
multiply; fill the earth and subdue it’” (Gn. 1: 28). With Christian civilization, people
have misunderstood the biblical phrase: “subdue it”. It “was viewed as a divine command
given to human beings, a command to dominate nature, to conquer the world and to rule
over it”4 Another biblical misinterpretation concerns the phrase: “Man is created in the
image of God” (Gn. 1: 26; 9: 6). “According to the biblical and Christian traditions it is
only the fact that he is made in the image of God that justifies and upholds man’s
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN/E. GIESSER, “Menschenrechte, Rechte der Menschheit und Recht der Natur” in Evang.
Theol. 50, 1990, p. 437-444, at 442: “Die Menschenrechte müssen mit den Rechten der Natur abgestimmt
werden, von der, mit der und in der die Menschen leben. Die Würde des Menschen hebt ihn nicht über
anderen Wesen hinaus, sondern verbindet ihn zugleich mit der Würde aller Lebenwesen, Christlich
gesprochen der Würde jedes Geschöpfes Gottes. Die Würde der Menschen kann durch die Menschenrechte
nicht auf Kosten der Rechte der Natur und der anderen Lebenwesen, sondern nur im Einklang mit ihnen
verwirklicht werden”(translation mine).
2
J. MOLTMANN, The Source of Life, p. 48-49.
3
Ibid., p. 49.
4
257
commission to rule over the earth.”1 This misinterpretation has led to the misuse of
natural resources and consequently, brought about a disharmony in the relationship
between human beings and other living creatures in nature. Moltmann blames on the
Christian belief with regard to man’s relationship with creatures: while Christian belief
teaches that since men are created in the image of God they should subdue the earth,
modern civilization convinces men to subdue the earth in order to become the image of
God.
Moltmann says: “since Francis Bacon and René Descartes…, it is man’s
expanding rule over nature which makes him the image of God and leads him to be like
God… This perverted picture of man gave rise to the conviction that man must do
everything he can with the world he dominates. Lordship therefore implies a taking
possession, and possession means using and exploiting for the purposes of one’s own
life.”2
If it is true that, according to the biblical tradition, to be in the image means to
represent, then to be in God’s image means to be God’s representative on earth and does
not concern some likeness between God and man but rather a question of function. God
delegates man to exercise his rule over all that is in the universe (cf. Ps. 8: 5-9, Sir. 17: 3-
4). Therefore, there is no doubt about the dominion that God imparts to man who is
created in God’ image; however, the question is how we should interpret the function of
dominion? Is it to mean that man can do whatever he wants to creatures, or is he
supposed to take care of them and protect them?
We need to correctly interpret the community of creatures in the light of
Trinitarian community. Since our God is not a God of domination but a communal God,
so, human beings, being in the image of God, are not subjects dominating the earth, but
form a community with other creatures. Furthermore, because God is the God of Love,
who can communicate with his creatures by dwelling with them, human beings too
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 171; cf. God in Creation, p. 220.
2
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 171; cf. “Reconciliation with Nature”, p. 204-2-
5. W. Pannenberg gives a contrasting view. It is not Christianity’s misinterpretation of Gen. 1: 28 that
caused the unrestricted exploitation of nature. But rather, it is because the industrial society with modern
technology rejects its Christian roots and applied the modern economic method, resulting in the ecological
crisis. Therefore, “the criticism of biblical anthropology that blames the giving of dominion in Gen. 1: 28
for the unrestricted exploitation of nature by modern technology and industrial society, and for the resultant
ecological crisis, must be rejected as without merit”(W. PANNENBERG, Systematic Theology, vol. 2, p. 204).
258
cannot live apart from other creatures, but live in communion with them. Indeed, because
human beings and all other creatures are part of the community of the earth, the
community of human beings cannot separate itself from the rest of the world, but has to
coexist with them. If human beings damage or destroy other creatures or their
environments, they destroy the intention and plan of God.1
Witnessing the deterioration of nature caused by human beings, the question is
raised as to how the Christian understanding of Scripture regarding creation should be
reinterpreted. Moltmann interprets the stories in the Genesis: “the human being is one
creature among others… The account of creation is the account of a history in temporal
sequence… In this history of creation human beings appear on the stage last of all. In this
sense heaven and earth, light and darkness, the earth, plants and animals, are all creations
which prepare for the creation of human beings… As the last thing to be created, the
human being is (also) dependent on all others.”2 Furthermore, the human being is an
animated body (Gn. 2: 7); in a similar manner, animals are described as living souls (Gn.
1: 30). Both human beings and animals live on the earth, being nurtured with food and
vegetation; they both need to breath. God gave man authority to name the animals and
call them by name (Gn. 2: 19). According to Hebrew tradition, naming and calling
someone means taking him into a relationship. By naming and calling the animals,
human beings are supposed to allow them to enter into a relationship with men.
Moltmann considers human beings and animals as belonging to the same community.3
Humanity was not created as the dominant of other creatures; on the contrary, it
was created after them because it has to be dependent on them for food and for condition
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Reconciliation with Nature”, p. 306; “Pentecost and the Theology of Life”, p. 132-
133.
2
3
Cf. ibid., p. 27,188; The Ways of Jesus Christ, p. 46-48. E. Schillebeeckx offers another view of the
relationship of man towards nature, drawing on both creation stories. According to him, man needs both to
dominate and protect nature in order to be able to survive. From the anthropological point of view, man is a
body, but he also has a body, which is affected by the natural environment. If man wants to live as a human
being he has to toil and safeguard the earth and nature. In reality, a majority of humanity in the modern
technological and industrial era, as well as those of many past centuries, have had to struggle to liberate
themselves from ‘under-developed nature’. In fact, man needs to use technology to humanize nature in
order to make it a liveable environment for humanity. At the same time, in developing or dominating (as
the language of the first story of creation) nature, man also needs to protect it (according to the second story
of salvation). In other words, “now the concern on the one hand to emancipate man from nature without on
the other hand destroying his own ecological basis is an eminently human task, which cannot be
accomplished without instrumental reason”(E. SCHILEBEECKX, Christ, the Experience of Jesus as Lord, p.
735).
259
of life. Therefore, now humanity needs to abandon “its pubescent dreams of

omnipotence. We are not lords, but rather ‘children of the earth’.”1 Man needs the earth
and should consider it as his partner. Moltmann recalls the commandment: ‘You shall
love God your Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with your mind, and
your neighbour as yourself’ (cf. Mt. 22: 37-39) and includes the earth in the category of
‘our neighbour’.
The other point Moltmann brings to the fore is the image of man. Man is not only
the image of God - imago Dei, but also the image of the world - imago mundi. Man is
truly the imago Dei only if he is also the imago mundi. Man represents the world before
God.2 “As ‘image of the world’ he stands before God as the representative of all other
creatures. He lives, speaks and acts on their behalf. Understood as imago mundi, human
beings are priestly creations and Eucharistic beings. They intercede before God for the
community of creation.”3 Once men fulfill their role as representatives of other creatures,
they are the imago Dei. “Human beings are God’s proxy in the community of creation.
They represent his glory and his will. They intercede for God before the community of
creation. In this sense they are God’s representatives on earth.”4 The two images of the
role of human beings are realized within the creatures. The central foundation sustenance
both of the imago Dei and the imago mundi of human being is the harmony that human
beings establish with other creatures. On the contrary, if men destroy other creatures, they
will lose their image.5
3.4.2.4. The Sabbath of the earth

According to the first story of creation, after six days of creating the universe, on
the seventh day God rests and blesses his creation. This is the feast day on which all that
was created, including heaven, stars, plants, animals and human beings, are present. In
this sense, not only human beings but also all creatures are crowned on this feast. The
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Ways of Jesus Christ, p. 46-48; cf. God in Creation, p. 27.
2
Man is imago mundi meaning that he represents the world before God, i.e. man is the representative of
other creatures to God. But Moltmann does not say explicitly whether the stories of Genesis or other
biblical passages indicate this.
3
4
Ibidem.
5
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Hope and the Biomedical Future of Man” in E. H. COUSINS (ed.), Hope and the
Future of man, p. 89-105.
260
Sabbath is the feast day for all creatures of God.1 The Sabbath is the hallmark of the
doctrine of creation; the story of God’s creation counts seven days, and the seventh day is
the culmination of His whole process of creation, thus including a day of rest, so that all
creatures can celebrate with Him. Therefore, without the Sabbath, the story of creation is
incomplete. In this sense, the theology of creation cannot overlook the Sabbath.2
Outcries for respecting the rights of nature are also based on scripture, according
to which men should not overuse land and nature but let it rest every seven years: Lev.
25: 4 reads: “During the seventh year the land shall have a complete rest”; Ex. 23:10-11
commands the Israelites to let the earth rest every seventh year. Here is not only the
theological and social but also the ecological reason. In order to protect nature, the human
community needs to give it the opportunity of resting. In other words, humans should not
overuse nature; it needs a day of rest.
According to Moltmann, if the human body, through anticipating the resurrection,
is already liberated now by resting on the Sabbath, so too should nature be liberated by
men and women: “After six days of work, human beings and animals are meant to find
rest, and are not to intervene in nature, so that everything can recover its strength, and so
that nature may again be seen and acknowledged as God’s creation.”3
Furthermore, the book of Leviticus indicates that resting the land is essential for
the harmony of the earth. God says: “And I will scatter you among the nations… and
your land shall be a desolation, and your cities shall be a waste”(Lev. 26:23f.).
Moltmann, interpreting this scriptural passage in a positive sense, applies it to the exile of
Babylon. The Sabbath of the earth has its purpose its rest and survival; man has to obey
this commandment, otherwise he will be punished. The exile of the Israelites to Babylon
can be interpreted in this sense, i.e. so that they would not over-cultivate the land. They
lived in foreign lands so the land of Israel could rest.4
Moltmann regrets that today the principle of the ‘seventh day’ of the earth is not
observed in agriculture. On the contrary, the earth is continuously exploited, even with
fertilizers and other chemicals. He warns that if humanity does not respect the earth,
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, God for a Secular Society, p. 114; “The Cosmic Community”, p. 97-98.
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, Jesus Christ for Today’s World, p. 22; “The Cosmic Community”, p. 97.
3
J. MOLTMANN, The Spirit of Life, p. 96; cf. God for a Secular Society, p. 113.
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “reconciliation with Nature”, p. 210-213; God for a Secular Society, p. 114-115.
261
humanity will be exiled like Israel, i.e. humankind as a whole will disappear on the earth,
and the earth will be able to rest. Therefore, it is important to realize that “the celebration
of the Sabbath, and reverence for ‘the Sabbath of the earth’, can become our own
salvation and the salvation of earth from which we live.”1 He proposes that the Church
should include the ‘earth day’ as one of the festivals of the Church. In fact, the ‘earth
day’ is already celebrated in many Church congregations in America on April 22. On the
‘earth day’, humanity should ask for forgiveness for its offences towards the earth, and
renew its covenant with God and with his creatures.2 Moltmann should be praised for
including ecology in his ecclesiology and theology of hope, although he himself admits
his debt to Albert Schweitzer.3
3.4.3. Cosmic Christology and hope in a cosmic world

Anthropological Christology, which reduces salvation to only salvation of human
beings, has unintentionally disregarded the true content of salvation which includes the
cosmic world. Therefore, Christology today is necessarily a cosmic Christology, for
anthropology cannot be independent from cosmology; human beings cannot exist and
survive outside the world. The confinement of Christology to anthropology has caused
such disrespect for nature that today Moltmann and other theologians, such as
Pannenberg, have taken up the cause of the preservation of nature. Moltmann argues
forcefully: “Unless nature is healed and saved, human beings cannot ultimately be healed
and saved either, for human beings are natural being.”4
Human beings are at the same time imago Dei and imago mundi. He is also imago
Christi, and only by being imago Christi is he able to sustain his imago Dei and imago
mundi.5 But human beings can become imago Christi only through predestination,
calling, justification and glorification. St. Paul indicates that to be imago Dei logically
becomes imago Christi: “For those he (God) foreknew he also predestined to be
1
Ibid., p. 116.
2
Cf. ibid., p. 115-116.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, Source of Life, 49; cf. A. SCHWEITZER, Kulture und Ethik, München: Beck Verlag,
1960; Reich Gottes und Christentum, Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1967; Reverence for Life,
London: S.P.C.K., 1970, trans. by D. E. Trueblood from the German Strassburger Predigten, München:
Beck Verlag, 1966.
4
5
Although theology often talks about imago Dei but ignores imago Christi, in fact, imago Christi is well
founded in the New Testament, and is an indispensable theme in the theology of nature.
262
conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many
brothers. And those he predestined he also called; and those he called he also justified;
and those he justified he also glorified” (Rm. 8: 29-30). Indeed, mankind is called to be
imago Christi; this is his messianic vocation. Christ is the true imago Dei, the likeness of
God (II Cor. 4: 4) because in him the glory of God is shown. By participating in the
fellowship of Jesus Christ, human beings shows the glory of God on earth, and a new
creation has an assurance for its hope. “The restoration or the new creation of the likeness
to God comes about in the fellowship of believers with Christ: since they are the
messianic imago Dei, believers become imago Christi, and through this enter upon the
path which will make them gloria Dei on earth.”1 Man is called to be imago Dei in his
creation, and he becomes imago Christ through the saving grace of Jesus Christ. He
receives the gift of salvation, but he also has a vocation to gives witness to the glory of
God. Moltmann says: “So likeness to God is both gift and charge, indicative and
imperative. It is charge and hope, imperative and promise. Sanctification has justification
as its presupposition, and glorification as its hope and its future.”2
In fulfilling their messianic vocation as being the imago Christi, human beings
live not only in the fellowship of other human beings, but also in harmony with other
creatures. Christ’s imago Dei embraces the authority of the dominum terrae, for to him
“all authority is given in heaven and on earth” (cf. Mt. 28: 18). Therefore, if human
beings are given the authority to “subdue the earth”, this authority is only participation in
that of Jesus Christ, who comes not do destroy but to renew. In this sense, human beings
are called to express the glory of Jesus Christ on earth by respecting the glory of God
shown in creatures.3
Moltmann says that when human beings understand their vocation in the midst of
the world not as dominators but as caretakers of the creatures of God, they will give
thanks to God not only for themselves but also for the world and other living things. He
writes: “The human… does not merely dominate the world and use it. He is also able to
discern the world in full awareness as God’s creation, to understand it as sacrament of
God’s hidden presence, and to apprehend it as a communication of God’s fellowship.
1
2
Ibid., p. 227.
3
Cf. ibid., p. 225-228.
263
That is why human being is able consciously to accept creation in thanksgiving, and
consciously to bring creation before God again in praise.”1
According to Moltmann, Christian hope therefore has a universal object, which
comprises both humans and other creatures: “The hope of the redemption of the body and
the hope of the redemption of all creation from vanity are one. Hence it is on this hope of
the redemption of the body that universality, which belongs to Christian hope depends.”2
3.4.4. New solutions for the ecological crisis

We are living in a period when there is ever increasing of exploitation of natural
resources. Human beings are not just satisfied with elementary needs; their expectations
are increasing. They consume more, and thus their demand augments. “As needs are
satisfied, demands are stepped up, so that demand and satisfaction accelerate one another.
This race between demand and satisfaction is the inward motor that drives expansionist
economy.”3 The consequence of this uncontrolled consumption is that nature and raw
material are exploited excessively.4 “This results in an ever more comprehensive spiral,
whose future today can be seen as no longer being life, more life and great power, but the
universal death of humanity and organic nature.”5 However, because we are living on
an earth that has limited resources, we need to reform our relationship to nature,
reconsidering three aspects: man’s orientation toward his needs, man’s review of the
philosophy of economics, and man’s relationship with other creatures.
First of all, regarding man’s need orientation, human beings cannot continue to
find satisfaction purely in commercialism and consumption. Human society needs to
orientate its desires. In this way, the race between demand and satisfaction in economy
will be halted. Otherwise, whole human community as well as the earth will be in
trouble: “If the immoderate acceleration of demand and satisfaction goes on, the race will
1
Ibid., p. 70-71.
2
J. MOLTMANN, Theology of Hope, p. 214. Other theologians, such as W. Kasper, also include the earth
among the effects of Christian hope: “Christian hope is loyal to the earth. As hope in eternal life, it not only
respects life but turns lovingly towards all that is living and alive. A man who hopes becomes an active
emblem of hope in life”(W. KASPER, Jesus the Christ, Kent, Great Britain/New Jersey, USA:
Burns&Oates/Paulist Press, 1976, p. 155).
3
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Christian in the Third Millennium”, p. 88.
5
264
force us into a global crisis which will put an end to all claims alike.”1 Furthermore,
human values need to be reevaluated. Man has to realize that he is reducing himself to the
point of letting himself become an unlimited laborer, consumer. Man has other values
than those of economics.2 In addition, the values of society should not be based on
growth, but on equilibrium; not on development, expansion or conquest. The possession
of power in the economic and social sense should not be the measure of human
happiness.3
Secondly, concerning the philosophy of economics, we are living in the modern
industrial society where there is exploitation of human workers, nature and land. All are
required to overwork and the consequence is that both man and nature overlabor.
Therefore, we now need an awareness of the necessity of limiting the use of resources
both human and natural. We should realize that there is a mutual correspondence between
the relation of man with nature and that of man with man. When men exploit nature they
often abuse others; therefore, when men avoid exploiting nature, they will consequently
abstain from using others, and the social relationships among people will become better.
Conversely, when men have respect for others, men will not use others in the venture of
exploiting nature. If one loves his fellowmen he will respect their house, which is nature.
If one loves nature, he will not use his fellowmen unjustly to exploit nature.
Thirdly, human society should understand that its survival is stringently
conditioned by the survival of the nature human beings live in. The extinction of nature
means the end of humanity. The human fight for survival cannot be fought at the expense
of nature, because all human life on earth would come to an end with the collapse of the
ecology.4 “We will have to move away from the principle of exploitation and competition
to the principle of cooperation.”5 In this sense, we also can see the well-being of the
environment as part of human rights. Human beings have the right to a healthy
environment. This concept has been considered as the minimum condition for human
1
Ibidem.
2
Cf. ibid., p. 172-173.
3
J. MOLTMANN, God in Creation, p. 25-26.
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN/E. GIESSEN, Menschenrechte, Rechte der Menschheit und Recht der Natur, p. 442:
“Der menschliche Kampf um das Überleben kann nicht auf Kosten der Natur ausgetragen werden, weil
anders der ökologische Kollaps der Natur allem menschlichen Leben auf dieser Erde das Ende bereiten
würde.” Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Reconciliation with Nature”, p. 310.
5
J. MOLTMANN, “Christian in the Third Millennium”, p. 88-89; cf. God in Creation, p. 185-190.
265
dignity. Although this view is not perfect in itself because it means that nature is in
service to human beings, it is sufficient to require people to protect nature. Furthermore,
we have to consider nature in its own right. In other words, nature has its own rights and
dignity and it must be protected from exploitation.1
Concretely, ecological reform needs to consider triple dimensions: production,
circulation and consumption; protecting the environment sometimes requires demolition
of infrastructures or the avoidance of new constructions which may damage nature;
consumption and production also need to take into account hazardous waste. Ecological
reform should start on the local community level, because people living in proximity feel
the need of their own protection, and thus are more sensitive to the safety of their
environment. In this context, they are justified in refusing the installation of multinational
and major industrial projects in their communities.2
Concluding, Moltmann says: “Certainly, we modern persons cannot return to a
natural paradise such as that. We need to translate these early insights and attitudes of
humanity toward the earth into the future of our civilization if we are to survive together
with the earth instead of being destroyed along with the earth by this modern
civilization.”3 The evidence is overwhelming that “it is only the fellowship of men and
women and of human societies, participating equally in responsibility and a just
distribution of goods, which gives everyone, collectively and individually, a chance of
survival. It is only fellowship in respect for the unique character and needs of the natural
environmental system which gives humanity and nature a chance of survival.”4 He argues
that there is a need of establishing an international system of economic justice, which
includes the rights of nature. Men should realize that economic rights cannot be truly
observed without respecting the rights of nature, because if nature is destroyed, there will
be no more economy. “Economic rights must therefore be harmonized with the cosmic
conditions of the nature of the earth where human beings live and increase. This means
that ecological justice between human civilization and nature must match economic
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Human Rights, the Rights of Humanity and the Rights of Nature”, p. 130.
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “La société moderne a-t-elle un avenir?”, p. 68-69.
3
4
266
justice between the people in a society, between human societies, and between the
generations of the human race.”1
According to Moltmann, there will be no peace on earth if there is no blessing of
nature. Humanity has the right to govern nature only in the sense of bringing it peace by
promoting harmony between culture and nature. Politics has to co-operate with religion
in order to bring harmony and peace to nature, and thus also to humanity.2 Because the
survival of the earth brings about the survival of humanity, today all people emphasize
the absolute need of protecting the earth. Moltmann says that the standard of
measurement will be ‘the earth’. “World politics will become earth politics, world
economics will become earth economics”3 and the ‘World Religion’ is the ‘earth
religion’. Thus, the earth becomes the center of the world.
3.4.5. Hope for nature and the Church

If the earth is God’s home, what should the Church do for it? Moltmann argues
that the Church cannot orient itself inward, but towards the cosmos: “Essentially the
Church is cosmically oriented. Limiting the Church merely to the world of human beings
was a dangerous modern restriction. But if the Church is indeed oriented towards the
cosmos, the ‘ecological crisis’ of the earthly creation is also the crisis of the Church
itself.”4 Moltmann cites two arguments for the Church’s need to include the earthly
creation in its mission: 1) the Church needs to survive with the survival of the earth; if the
earth is destroyed, the Church too will disappear with it. 2) The Church is the
representative of creation; therefore, the Church suffers with the suffering of the earth. In
this sense, the Church needs to relieve the suffering of the earth by protecting and
improving the condition of life of the earth. Both these two arguments are based on the
theological argument, which considers earthly creation as the house of God, which the
Church and human beings need to respect.5
In fact, According to St. Paul, the world was in bondage (cf. Rom. 8), and
although it is liberated and reconciled by Christ (cf. Col. 1: 20), the present reality of the
1
J. MOLTMANN, “Human Rights, the Rights of Humanity and the Rights of Nature”, p. 129-130.
2
Cf. MOLTMANN, Giustizia crea futuro, p. 128
3
4
J. MOLTMANN, “The Scope of Renewal in the Spirit”, p. 102; cf. “reconciliation with Nature”, p. 308.
5
Cf. ibidem.
267
world is under the dominion of death. The community of suffering human beings cannot
separate itself from the rest of the world, but has to suffer with it in view of liberating the
whole community of creatures from suffering and the threat of annihilation. Nature is not
the property or ‘environment’ of human beings and it cannot be appropriated and
subjugated by human beings.1 Subsequently, “it is essential for life to rediscover nature
as an active force, a logical subject in its own right, behind our own environment…
Human culture must be ‘compatible with the environment’, but the human environment
must also be compatible with nature and respect the laws and rhythms of nature and the
natural environments of the living creature, of plants, trees and animals.”2
Moltmann also points out that the Church has been responsible for causing
damage to the earth; therefore, it has the duty of repairing it. The Church has dismantled
the old philosophy, which respected the harmony of nature. On the contrary, the Church
considered nature as material serving human conquest. In order to repair the damage,
there is need of a fundamental reformation of the modern religious mentality. We can no
longer separate God from nature; we need to perceive God in nature and nature in God.
We need to give the right of speech to non-human nature: animal and vegetable creatures.
Moltmann says: “I (Moltmann) see that the most important task of the Church of Christ
of today entails the ecological reform in religion. The reform of the modern industrial
society supposes a spiritual and cultural conversion which deepens its roots in the
religious experience of God and of nature. It is necessary that the Church become the
temple of all creatures.”3
If the human community is closely related to the rest of creation and if the Church
is the community of human beings, we cannot but see a vital relationship between the
Church and nature. Moltmann comes to the conclusion that the crisis of nature will
necessarily cause a crisis in the Church, because the Church is a community of people
who live in the world and depend on the intact of environment. Indeed, “the ‘ecological
crisis’ of earthly creation is also the crisis of the Church itself, for as ‘flesh of its flesh
and bones of its bones’, it will be destroyed if the earth is destroyed.”4 In this sense, the
1
Cf. ibid., p. 103-104.
2
Ibid.,, p. 104.
3
J. MOLTMANN, “La société moderne a-t-elle un avenir?”, p. 92 (trans. mine).
4
J. MOLTMANN, “reconciliation with Nature”, p. 308; cf. “The Scope of Renewal in the Spirit”, p. 102.
268
Church has to orientate itself towards both human beings and nature. With regard to its
mission, the Church lives in the world and for the world; but the world here means both
human beings and all the rest of creation.
CONCLUDING REMARKS OF PART II, CHAPTER II

The resurrection of Jesus Christ and faith in the risen Christ is the basic for
Christians who are still hoping and waiting for their fulfillment: “But if there is no
resurrection of the dead, then neither has Christ been raised. And if Christ has not been
raised, then empty [too] is our preaching; empty, too, your faith (I Cor 15:13-14).
Although the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the beginning of the new life of mankind and
the world, Christians look forward to seeing the coming Jesus. In this sense, Christians’
faith, hope and love are based on the future Christ, but start with his resurrection, which
is the fulfillment of God’s promise and at the same time the stimulus for a new beginning
of Christian life.
It is right to say that Jesus Christ changes or renews the life of Christians in every
aspect. However, we can say that the ultimate goal of Christian hope lies in the future,
namely the resurrection. Once his resurrection is aimed at, man changes the course of his
life towards that goal; he conducts a new life. In other words he anticipates his
resurrection by living a present life of obeying God, loving his neighbors and taking care
of all creatures. Furthermore, the resurrection of Jesus is an event not only for Jesus
himself or for humankind, but it is an event for the whole universe.1
Hope in the resurrection motivates those who believe in the resurrection to
acknowledge the reality of the present life and at the same time anticipate and yearn for a
perfect life in the future. Since the realization of God’s promise of the resurrection is not
yet completed, the negation of the negative is in its process, and human beings have to
share the suffering of the world, hoping for the full realization of God’s promise. In this
sense, man has to face a continual negative reality in which the new heaven and new
earth are already contained (II Peter. 3: 13): the face unveiled in the glory of God (II Cor.
1
Along the same lines as Moltmann, Kasper says: “It is an event which is open to the future; one indeed
which opens the world to the future. It implies the eschatological fulfilment of man in his wholeness; it
implies a new humanity and a new world”(W. KASPER, Jesus the Christ, p. 154).
269
2: 18), the glorified body (I Cor. 15: 35ff.), the life without crying, tears, death, sorrow,
pain (Rev. 21: 4).1
In the present life, since Christians are already justified, they conduct a new and
blessed life, which drives them to have a direct and positive effect on every creature and
the world. Thus, through the new Christian life, all Christian Churches can give more
visible witness to the unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity of the universal Church.
They also bring hope in a concrete way to Judaism, other religions, other living creatures
and the whole created world, which are also created by God and affected by Jesus Christ.
Probably the most important thing that different religions, Christian and non-Christian,
can co-operate together in is promoting the unity of humanity, which will result in peace,
justice and other goodness. As the Church acknowledges that other religious traditions
also have concern for the unity of humanity and can make contributions to it.2
Jesus Christ is the center, the source and the reason for the life and hope of the
Church, of every Christian, of religions, of mankind and of all creatures. But because he
is past, present and also future, he also affects the whole existence of all creatures, whose
final goal is encounter with the Lord face to face. Both Jesus Christ and creatures are
looking forwards to this final and complete fulfillment at the event of the coming of
Jesus, who will gather all in his kingdom then hand it all over to his Father. The Holy
Spirit is now guiding his Church, humanity and all creatures towards this final
consummation by helping them engage in their preparation. In this context, the Church
has an important role of fulfilling its mission.
1
2
According to Pannenberg, the Church and other religions, despite differences, already have common
aspirations for working for the unity of the human community, and can even benefit from this co-operation
and mission: “Christians and non-Christians alike can share the insight that if they are to achieve their
human destiny of unity through peace and justice, they must achieve it through unity with God. The basic
insight into the meaning of religion for the unity of mankind can grow in spite of remaining disagreements
in our understanding of God and of the ways in which God is to be worshiped. It can also be the starting
point for a new closeness even in areas of disagreement. This closeness has already been partially achieved
as the result of reciprocal relationships between the Christian and non-Christian religious traditions”(W.
PANNENBERG, The Church, p. 154).
270
PART III. THE CHURCH IN THE POWER OF THE SPIRIT

Jesus Christ does not leave his disciples orphans, but promised to remain with
them until the end of the world. He asked his Father to send the Holy Spirit to the Church
to guide it in truth (cf. Jn.14: 17, 26; 15:26; 16:13; Lk. 24:49). Just as Jesus said He had
to depart so that the Advocate might come (cf. Jn. 16: 7), so the Holy Spirit has been
active since then in the Church. This is the era of the Spirit.1
Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church fulfills its mission of
proclaiming the kingdom of God to all nations. This mission originates from missio Dei,
not from the Church itself. What is the object of the Church’s mission? Who are the
agents of this mission? These two questions have always been raised in the history of the
Church. The mission of the Church consists of three dimensions: evangelization, pastoral
care and service to the world.
In the past, the understanding of the Church’s mission involved European
countries’ going to Third World countries in Africa, Asia, South America and the Pacific
to proclaim the Good News. Is this still the Church’s main mission? Today the situation
has changed. In post-modernity, European lands are missionary lands too. The Church’s
mission means not only proclaiming the Good News and baptizing but also renewing
Christians’ faith. In other words, although the Church’s mission, evangelization and
pastoral care, encompasses all Churches in all continents, it is also urgent in Europe.2
In its mission, the Church is the means of salvation insofar as it celebrates the
sacraments and proclaims the Gospels. In other words, it is both spreading the Christian
faith to those who have not accepted Jesus as their savior, and instructing and
strengthening those who are already baptized. By virtue of baptism, this mission is not
exclusively reserved to the clergy, but is the vocation of all Christians.
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, p. 122.
2
In my view, although North and South America are already christianised, today they also need a new
evangelisation as does Europe.
271
Furthermore, the Church also has a mission in the world. The Church has
ministries, gifts and tasks in the world. In fact, if the world is included in the kingdom of
God, then it must be the object of the Church’s mission.
In fulfilling its mission of serving its members and the world, the Church has to
live in view of the coming kingdom. The Church of Christ always “remembers Christ
alone and witnesses exclusively to His messianic mission in the world… It is a Church
under the cross, an exodus community and a charismatic community, demonstrating the
powers of the new creation and the liberating signs of the coming free world.”1
Moltmann illustrates the Church’s messianic mission in its two aspects: exodus
and charismatic.2 The Church is the exodus Church when it goes forwards into the world
to improve its condition. The Church is the charismatic Church when it allows all its
members, who receive charismata from the Holy Spirit, to be involved in the Church and
the world.
CHAPTER I. THE CHARISMATIC CHURCH

The Church of the risen Jesus Christ, living in the Spirit of the resurrection, makes
life a constant celebration. The Holy Spirit guides this Church and bestows on it the gifts
of the Spirit: “There are as many and as varied Charismata as there are many and varied
men. But there is only one Spirit and one common future. The abundance of Charismata
is as colorful as the creation itself.”3 The Church is the messianic fellowship in the world
and for the world; it offers means of salvation through proclamation, baptism, the Lord’s
Supper, worship, prayer, acts of blessing and the life of fellowship.4
Moltmann calls the Church the charismatic Church in the sense that the Church
and Christians receive the gifts (charismata) of the Holy Spirit and these gifts need to be
used effectively with a view to the kingdom and for the glory of God. Furthermore, when
the Church is the Church not for but of the people, i.e. the Church creates and provides
1
J. MOLTMANN, “Liberation in the Light of Hope”, p. 424.
2
We will see later how Moltmann designates the meanings of these two aspects: exodus and charismatic,
which, according to him, are different from traditional interpretations.
3
4
272
opportunities for people to carry out their missions according to their talents and gifts, it
lives its life in a celebration of joy. In this sense, Moltmann does not exclude charismatic
manifestations in the charismatic Church.1
The charismatic Church is based on three features: acknowledgement of the
lordship of Jesus Christ, experiences of the powers of the Holy Spirit, and anticipation of
the kingdom.2 In obeying the call to fulfill its mission under these three basics, the
Church cannot but be open to the Spirit who gifts the Church and Christians diversely.
Thus, the Church becomes the charismatic Church, the Church of the gifts of the Spirit.
2. THE STUCTURE AND METHOD OF THE CHARISMATIC CHURCH

Since Jesus’ history will be fulfilled in his future, the Church’s mission follows
the messianic Jesus. The Church is a messianic fellowship, being oriented in its mission
towards the coming kingdom of God; it participates in Christ’s own mission on the way
to his future. The Church offers sacraments and worship as the means of salvation. By
receiving the grace of God through sacraments, Christians become aware of their gifts
and tasks towards the Church and the world. Moltmann says that both the fellowship
within the Church and the mission outside the Church, both sacraments and ministries,
are important in the charismatic Church: “The forms of its fellowship and public
functions, and the shape of its order and its ministries, are not merely externals and
inessentials; they are no less important than the word and the sacraments.”3
In the Church, through baptism, every believer receives gifts and tasks. Although
these gifts and tasks are different for each Christian, all members of the Church are
needed. In the Church, a charismatic community, “there is no fundamental distinction
between clergy and laity. Charismatically the whole people of God are embodied
religiously, personally, politically and socially in God’s all-encompassing liberation
movement.”4
The Holy Spirit is guiding the Church in the right direction, which necessitates its
reform, and inspiring Christians to become active in service of the kingdom. Today, it is
1
According to Moltmann, in charismatic congregations, Christians do not sit idle and remain ‘dumb’ like
Christians in the ‘Church for the people’, because they are allowed to be more active in worship and to
participate in diverse ministries.
2
3
Ibid., p. 290.
4
273
necessary that all Christians become aware of their gifts and tasks. “Every Charisma is
both gift and task. Every charisma is a power of the new creation. The Spirit activates our
capacities and possibilities for the Kingdom of God, for the liberation of the world.”1
1.1. Sending the Holy Spirit

Scripture speaks of the Spirit of God who accompanied Jesus in his life and later
was sent by Jesus.
According to the Synoptic Gospels, the Spirit of God descended upon Jesus at his
baptism, and the Spirit of the Father also accompanied Jesus through his life and raised
him from the dead (cf. Heb. 9: 14; I Cor. 15:45). Jesus himself talks about the Spirit of
the Father: “for it will not be you who speaks but the Spirit of your Father speaking
through you” (Matt. 10: 20).
The Gospel of John reports that Jesus beseeched the coming of the Spirit in the
Church. Jesus says: “I will not leave you orphans” (John 14: 18), “and I will ask the
Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always” (John 14:16). “The
Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you
everything and remind you of all that I told you” (John 14: 26). “But when he comes, the
Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth” (John 16: 13). “When the Advocate comes
whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father,
he will testify to me” (John 15: 26).
While we wait for the return of Jesus, the Holy Spirit guides the Church and its
members to live in the truth. This is the era of the Holy Spirit who is present in the
Church and in the world as the Church celebrates the gospel and sacraments and
accomplishes its ministries, gifts and tasks.
1.1.1. Pneumatology and Trinitarian theology

Ecclesiology has to be understood in relation to Christology, pneumatology and
eschatology, within the history of the Trinity’s relation to the world. In Moltmann’s book
The Church in the Power of the Spirit, the pneumatological perspective is considered at
length.
1
Ibidem.
274
With the filioque, the Nicene Creed professes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from
the Father and the Son; but Moltmann disapproves it: “The Holy Spirit thus proceeds
from the Father and is sent by the Son. Between Christ, the recipient of the Spirit, and
Christ, the sender of the Spirit, stands God the Father as the eternal origin of the Holy
Spirit.”1
If Jesus received the Spirit at his baptism and the Spirit raised him from the dead,
he is now the sender of the Spirit upon the Church.2
The encyclical Dominum et Vivificantem (1986)3 indicates the change and
continuity of the role of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit in the Church and world, when it
cites John 16: 7, which says: “If I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but
if I go, I will send him to you”. Therefore, in terms of his essence, the Holy Spirit
originates from the Father. In terms of the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Church, He is
coming according to the will of Jesus: “The origin of his existence is the Father, but the
cause of his coming is the Son.”4 This does not mean that “the work of Christ and the
coming of the Spirit were viewed as a temporal sequence in salvation history, so the era
of the Spirit followed and superseded the era of Christ.”5 On the contrary, Christ
continues to be present in the Church as Jesus says: “He who hear you, hears me” (cf. Lk.
10:16; Jn. 5:24). Although the Holy Spirit continues the mission of the Son fulfilling his
eschatological purpose and direction, pneumatology is not an application nor
subordination of Christology; but the two complement and intensify one another.6
It is in the Trinitarian history of God’s dealing with the world7 that both
Christology and pneumatology accomplish the mission of unifying all things in the triune
God. In this context, St. Paul places the sending of the Spirit parallel to the sending of the
1
J. MOLTMANN, “Pentecost and the Theology of Life”, p. 128. Cf. “The Wealth of Gifts of the Spirit and
their Christian Identity”, p. 33; “Come, Creator Spirit, and Renew Life: A Theological Meditation on the
‘Life-Giving Spirit’”, in Louvain Studies 22, 1997, p. 3-14, at 8. For a further study of Moltmann’s
theology on the filioque, see The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, p. 178-188; The Spirit of Life, p. 71-73,
306-309.
2
3
Cf. JOHN PAUL II, Dominum et Vivificantem, n. 8.
4
J. MOLTMANN, The Spirit of Life, p. 70. I feel that it is also right to say that the Holy Spirit comes from
the Father and the Son in either one of these two senses: 1) the Holy Spirit originates from the Father but is
sent by the Son; 2) the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and by the Son.
5
Ibid., p. 232.
6
Cf. ibid., p. 230.
7
Moltmann uses the term ‘God’s dealing with the world’ to express the history of God’s relationship with
the world in terms of its redemption.
275
Son (cf. Gal. 4: 4-6) and St. John considers the sending of the Holy Spirit in the context
of the unity of the Trinity (cf. John. 14: 26; 15:26). “In the sending of the Son and the
Spirit the Trinity does not only manifest what it is in itself; it also opens itself for history
and experience of history.”1
According to the New Testament, Christians experience the presence of the Holy
Spirit and through the presence of the Holy Spirit in them, God dwells in them. Indeed, if
in the past, people could experience the presence of God only in the temple, now they can
also experience his presence in their own bodies, for they become the temple of the Holy
Spirit (cf. I Cor. 6: 13-20). Furthermore, the Holy Spirit will transform the whole creation
into the indwelling of God’s glory. In the end the new heaven and new earth will be
God’s indwelling.2
Moltmann unifies the history of Christ and the history of the Holy Spirit in the
history of God’s dealing with the world: in the sending of the Son, the Trinity is open to
the world and to men; in glorifying God as the work of the Holy Spirit, the Trinity is
open to the gathering and uniting of humanity and all creation in God and with God.3 The
Holy Spirit glorifies the Father and the Son in creation. In the order of the outpouring of
the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son; in the
order of the glorification of the Trinity, the Church’s glorification proceeds from the Holy
Spirit through the Son to the Father.4
In the experience of the Holy Spirit, having been driven by new obedience and
new fellowship, men and women place themselves in the movement of the new creation
which renders glory to God. “The power which glorifies men in the glory of God is the
Holy Spirit. That is why he is called the first fruits and guarantee of glory (Rom. 8:23; II
Cor. 5:5). He glorifies Christ in believers and unites them with him. Through union with
Christ in the Holy Spirit the coming glory already becomes efficacious in the present
life.”5 When Christians make use of the gifts of the Spirit to serve the kingdom of God,
the Trinity is glorified: “The Spirit glorifies the Father and the Son by freeing men for
fellowship with them, filling men in their freedom with joy and thanksgiving. The
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Holy Spirit, p. 56.
2
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Holy Spirit, p. 60.
4
5
276
glorifying of the Son and the Father through the Spirit sets men on the road towards the
glory for which they themselves are destined.”1
However, although God’s glorification in creatures has already begun, it will be
completed only at its consummation. The creation is on its way to its full liberation. The
eschatological dimension in the purpose of the works of the Holy Spirit is the fulfillment
of the glorification of God in creation, which is on its way to completion through the
concrete actions of the Holy Spirit in the Church and in the world. “The eschatological
meaning of the messianic mission of Christ and the Spirit lies in the glorifying of God
and the liberation of the World, in the sense that God is glorified through the liberation
and healing of creation, and that he does not desire to be glorified without his liberated
creation.”2
1.1.2. The renewal of all living creatures and of the earth

At first, ‘Maranatha’ is a prayer for the coming of Jesus: “Come, Lord Jesus!”
(cf. Rev.22: 20); however, this prayer has become a prayer for the coming of the Holy
Spirit: Come, Holy Spirit (Veni Creator Spiritus, a song of Hrabanus Maurus). This
evolution is reasonable because “the parousia of the Holy Spirit is nothing other than the
beginning of the Parousia of Christ.”3
The Holy Spirit comes, and those who pray for the coming of the Holy Spirit open
themselves to Him and allow Him to act in them; thus, they experience His presence.
“We are always experiencing the Holy Spirit in a twofold way: as a divine Other to who
we cry, and as a divine Presence within which we cry… The response to our prayer for
the Holy Spirit is his coming and abiding, his outpouring and indwelling.”4 When
Christians welcome the Holy Spirit, they also experience the presence of the Lord.
Indeed, Scripture shows that “the Spirit whom the disciples experience, and with them
the community of believers, bears the impress of Christ (the Spirit suffers with Christ).
1
Ibidem.
2
Ibid., p. 60.
3
J. MOLTMANN, “Come, Creator Spirit, and Renew Life: A Theological Meditation on the ‘Life-Giving
Spirit’”, p. 4.
4
Ibidem.
277
Through the Spirit they enter into Christ’s saving and life-giving fellowship. In the
experience of the life-giving Spirit they recognize Jesus as the Lord of God’s rule.”1
When Christians call out for the coming of the Holy Spirit, they are asking for life
and freedom, which the world and the earth now lack, for they realize that they are facing
a progressive destruction of nature and of the human community and need God’s help.
Human beings are not in the state of perfection; on the contrary they are mortal and liable
to destruction. Human beings need to be born again in order to be able to avoid doing
evil; they need a renewal. The Holy Spirit is the ‘Spirit of life’; He is sent as the ‘fountain
of life’. When we cry for the coming of the Holy Spirit, we open ourselves to the
presence of the Holy Spirit, and our lives are renewed. “The creative and life-giving
Spirit of God brings us this eternally living life here and now before we die, not after we
die… The Spirit of life which Christ sends into the world is the power of the resurrection
which brings new life. The sending of the Holy Spirit is the revelation of God’s
indestructible affirmation of life and his marvelous zest for life.”2
Moltmann interprets Joel 3:1 and Acts 2: 17ff (The Spirit is outpouring on all
flesh) as saying that the Holy Spirit is present in all human beings, other living creatures
and also in the rest of creation: ‘“All flesh’ refers to human life, but it also applies, as
Gen. 9:10ff. says, to all living things, plants, trees and animals.”3 Because the world is
created ex nihilo, it has the possibility of returning to nothingness; therefore, it needs
God’s sustenance through the presence of the divine Spirit. In human language, we can
say that God conserves the world or affirms the creation every moment. These
interpretations of the preservation and sustenance of the world have the purpose of
orienting the original creation towards its perfection in view of participating in the divine
glory: “God preserves and sustains his creatures for their perfection. God’s preservation
of creation is in itself already a preparation for their perfection.”4
If God created all his creatures in the power of his Spirit, through this Spirit He
can continue to protect his creatures through his presence in the Spirit, as the Old
Testament tells that the Spirit of God (ruah) which is God’s breath of life caused all
1
2
J. MOLTMANN, “Pentecost and the Theology of Life”, p. 129.
3
J. MOLTMANN, “Come, Creator Spirit, and Renew Life: A Theological Meditation on the ‘Life-Giving
Spirit”, p. 5.
4
J. MOLTMANN, “The Scope of Renewal in the Spirit”, p. 103.
278
creatures to exist and sustains all in life (cf. Ps. 104: 29f.; Wisdom 1: 7; Is. 34: 16).
Heaven and earth are God’s dwelling-place, and God is present there through the
presence of the Holy Spirit. “The Spirit of God has been everywhere present, sustaining,
nourishing and vivifying all things in heaven and on earth. The power and wisdom of the
Spirit is at work in all things and imparts to them their existence, their life and their
movement.”1
So this is the intention of God that the Holy Spirit sustain and renew all creatures
as one community in which human beings exist together with other creatures: “Like the
Spirit of creation, the Spirit of the new creation creates a communion of life among
human beings as well as between human beings and all other living things.”2 The Holy
Spirit comes to renew the whole creation: “The fundamental conditions of the present
creation are transformed. Creation is freed from the power of time for the presence of
eternity and from the dominion of death for eternal life.”3
1.2. Ministries in the Church

The Church of today and tomorrow continues to exist by inheriting its identity
from the apostolic Church, fulfilling its apostolic mission, and leaving itself open to the
guidance of the Holy Spirit. In this sense, the Church remains related to its root and at the
same time adapts itself to new situations and environments. In so doing, the Church
maintains its same mission, but its ministries can be diversified according to each epoch.
1.2.1. Foundation of ministries

The foundation of particular ministries in the Church lies on a twofold foundation:
the Church’s calling and the commission that Jesus assigns to each Christian through
baptism.
The various ministries in the Church presuppose the common ministry of the
Church, which originates in Jesus Christ: “The number of ministries in the congregation
and their particular character is not left to the personal choice of the congregation itself.
Nor can be extracted as a rule or regulation from the tradition of earlier congregations. It
1
Ibid., p. 102.
2
J. MOLTMANN, “Pentecost and the Theology of Life”, p.132.
3
J. MOLTMANN, “The Scope of Renewal in the Spirit”, p. 104.
279
is founded and forged by Christ through the present gathering and sending forth of the
messianic community.”1
The commission of Christians is based on the unique priesthood of Jesus Christ,
which Christians participate in though baptism. According to the Epistle to the Hebrews,
the high and unique priest Jesus Christ, who offered himself on the cross once and for all
(cf. Heb. 10:10-14) and continues to intercede with the Father for us, has abolished the
old priest of the Old Testament. Each Christian is called and charged with a mission, not
outside, but within the Church community through baptism. The charge to the community
precedes the charge of individual Christians. “The charge to the community lies in the
calling of believers through Christ to the kingdom of God through the power of the Holy
Spirit. This charge is made visible through the sign of baptism. The community of the
baptized is the community of those who have been called.”2
The absolute relationship between community and special assignments, as well as
the fundamental nature of particular ministries, are defined thanks to the ‘general
priesthood’ that Jesus imparts to all Christians. In fact, Jesus has renewed the statute
concerning priesthood. There is no more a special ministerial class of priesthood, for each
and everyone is called through baptism. All Christians receive the ministry of priesthood
from Jesus. There is no more distinction between a special priestly class and the rest of
the people as there was in the Old Testament, for Jesus himself is the unique ‘high priest’.
St. Peter reiterates this general priesthood, saying: “You are a chosen race, a royal
priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own, so that you may announce the praises of
him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light” (I Peter 2: 9).3
The Church is called to continue the mission of Jesus Christ in rendering services
to the kingdom of God. This mission needs the participation and co-operation of all
members of the Church. Therefore the Church assigns each believer a particular task. In
this sense, the particular callings of Christians in a community proceed from the calling
of the community as a whole. Although each Christian takes on a particular charge, he
has to bear witness within the unity of the entire community of the people of God. “It is
only as an undivided entirety that it can make the entire and total character of the life of
1
2
Ibid., p. 300-301.
3
Cf. ibid., p. 302.
280
the new creation manifest. Because they serve the liberation of the whole in common, and
each in his own way, they are the kingly people and participate in the divine rule” (Rev.
1:5; 5:10; 20:6).1
1.2.2. Ministries within the community

In the Church there are various ministries and tasks, but they are all assigned by
Jesus through and within the community. In fact, by virtue of baptism, all Christians
belong to the community and are called to live and bear witness to Christ in the kingdom
of God. No Christian lives for himself, but becomes part of the community. Thus,
whatever ministry he does, he does in the name of the community. Those who take on
particular charges or assignments come from the community, and “their commission does
not separate them from the people and does not set them above the people either, for it is
exercised in fellowship with and by commission of the whole people and in the name of
that people’s commissioning.”2
Thus, there is a commissioned church and special commissions; “community and
particular assignments grow up simultaneously, together, and are therefore dependent on
one another. Assignments can only be given and carried out in the fellowship of God’s
people.”3 It is important to clarify here that the various assignments originate in Jesus
Christ, not in the fellowship, yet they are carried out in the fellowship. In this sense,
Christians with particular assigned ministries carry out their missions within the
fellowship of the Church, not for their own particular Churches, but for the interests of
the kingdom of God. “They (the special assignments) lie within the power of the Holy
Spirit and cannot therefore be the uncritical expression of the forces of any particular
community spirit. They serve the kingdom of God and not the interests of the existing
Church and the different human interests contained in it.”4
Moltmann explains the relationship between the assignments and the community:
people gather in the Church not because of a particular minister, but to celebrate
sacraments, to hear the proclamation, to talk to one another; then in this gathering, one or
some ministers come forward to preach, to baptize or to fulfill the particular mission
1
Ibid., p. 301-302.
2
Ibid., p. 303.
3
Ibid., p. 305.
4
Ibid., p. 303.
281
assigned to them. These ministers also come to the gathering in Christ’s name.1 However,
“there is no temporal priority, and no priority of value. For there is no community
without special assignments and no special assignments apart from a community.
Community and particular assignments grow up simultaneously, together, and are
therefore dependent on one another. ”2
Here we can also explain the relationship between the special commission and the
community in another way: the content of the commission is the same, one coming from
Jesus Christ, who calls people to this mission; but in practice, it is the Church that assigns
people to particular assignments. Because the ministers are commissioned to act in
Christ’s name, there are two effects: Firstly, the community has the right to recall any
minister and to commission someone else. The ministers can be changed, although the
content of the ministries remains the same, and the act of commissioning cannot be
abolished. Secondly, ministers serve the interests of the kingdom of God, but not of a
particular Church, a group of people, or themselves.3
Moltmann says that the charges can be assumed for a certain time or for a whole
life. For example, ordination confers to the ordained a particular charge intended for a
lifetime; however, if one day he does not want or cannot continue to assume the charge,
he can be discharged of it because this particular charge remains a charge for the
community and another person can assume it. Furthermore, even if a particular charge is
lifted from this ordained person, he is not changed, because his baptism already calls him
once and for all and determines his whole life. The charges can be carried out by men or
women, married or unmarried.4
Moltmann clearly advocates the ordination of women, which is based on both
Christological and Pneumatological ecclesiology, as well as on Trinitarian theology:
“Prophesy is called a special endowment by the Pentecostal Spirit. It is an endowment
given to ‘sons and daughters’. God will speak out of them and through them. This - to put
it in traditional ecclesiastical language - is an unequivocal ‘ordination’ of men and
1
Cf. ibidem.
2
Ibid., p. 305.
3
Cf. ibid., p. 304.
4
Cf. ibid., p. 308.
282
women to the ministry or ‘spiritual office’.”1 Through baptism Christ liberates all
believers and restores them to the sonship of God; they have equal right to participate in
the Church in Jesus’ ministry of priest, teacher and prophet. The Holy Spirit draws to his
fellowship all believers who should therefore be allowed to share in all activities of the
Church; otherwise, the liberating activity of the Holy Spirit would be limited.2
If we understand correctly the nature of the special mission in relationship to its
foundation in Christ and in the context of Church fellowship and community, we will
avoid any one-sided interpretation distinguishing clergy from laity, which “has deprived
the laity of their responsibility, and robbed them of their own charisma.”3 Moltmann says
that the monarchical framework ‘one God, one Christ, one bishop, one Church’ applying
since Ignatius of Antioch is wrong theologically, although it might be practical in
responding to “contemporary political monotheism, but [which] is in contradiction to the
Trinitarian understanding of God and his people. The development of the monarchical
episcopate led to a quenching of the Spirit and was an impediment to the charismatic
Church”4 Moltmann is not against the particular ministries or the particular priesthood,
but he is against the monarchical hierarchy. Particular ministries are necessary for the
Church, but they need to be considered within the Church fellowship. “The particular
commission strengthens the common commissioning and the common commissioning
presents itself in the special commissions, and in no other way. The general ‘priesthood
of all believers’ cannot be set up over against the particular commissions, and the
particular ‘ministries’ cannot be set up over against the priesthood of all believers.”5
1.2.3. Variety of ministries in unity

The Holy Spirit guides the Church in every historical situation. The number and
form of the ministries cannot be fixed once and for all, but at each period and in each
circumstance, they are “dependent on the powers of the Spirit which are livingly present
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Source of Life, p. 101; cf. p. 23.
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Come, Creator Spirit, and Renew Life: A Theological Meditation on the ‘Life-Giving
Spirit”, p. 12; The Source of Life, p. 101-102.
3
Ibid., p. 234; cf. The Church in the Power of the Holy Spirit, p. 305. Regarding the laity’s ministries, they
should extend from within the Church gathering into families, work and other social relationships. Indeed,
there is no clear distinction between ministries in the Church and outside the Church (cf. J. MOLTMANN,
The Spirit of Life, p. 234-23).
4
5
Ibid., p. 306.
283
in it (community), and are determined in accordance with the tasks with which it
(community) is confronted.”1 Because the community of God is under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit and each local Church lives in different circumstances, there will be tasks
different in number and form in each unique community, depending on the inspiration of
the Holy Spirit. Each community offers its own charismatic gifts for the service of the
Church.
The three main ministries are the ministry of proclaiming the gospel (kerugma),
of baptizing and celebrating the Lord’s Supper (koinonia), and of carrying out charitable
work (diakonia).2 We cannot judge a priori that the Lord’s Supper is the most important
for all Churches, but each Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, decides for itself
that which is the center of its life: some may consider the preaching of God’s word,
others the common prayer, others the healing of the sick or charitable work. However,
“wherever a community may find its powers and its tasks to lie, the important thing is
always that the charges and commissions that are held to be essential and central should
be carried by the whole community; because they are part of the commission of the
community itself.”3
From these three ministries (kerugma, koinonia and diakonia) many other tasks
derive; however, a community cannot deduce other charges or missions only from that
ministry considered essential, but has to allow a variety of ministries to be active, despite
their less important status. Otherwise, “the community would then no longer be
considering itself charismatically gifted and alive but would be delegating its own
commission to the single holder of the central office.”4
Because the Church continues the mission of Jesus and Christians participate in
this mission through baptism, the commissions, not the ministers, are essential in the
Church. Because every Christian receives particular gifts and tasks, all members of the
Church are important for the Church, and although they receive different charges, they
are equal in the Church. Every person is called; “whether he be an ordinary member or
one with a special commission, has the same dignity and the same rights. But though
1
Ibidem.
2
These ministries are listed without order of precedence or value.
3
Ibid., p. 306-307.
4
Ibid., p. 307.
284
everyone has his own commission, not everyone has the same one; and consequently it is
not the people but the commissions that stand in the fore front.”1 All have the same right
and dignity, but the special commissions have to be conferred to certain members,
otherwise, these commissions would not be fulfilled. In this sense, the unity of the
charismatic Church is found in the one mission and diversity of ministries.
With the charge of diverse special ministries, the ministers always have to serve
in view of the unity of the community. They have to co-operate with one another and
with the rest of the community. In parishes “those who are specially commissioned ought
to form a fellowship of service… This fellowship of special service ought to be led in a
‘brotherly’ or collegial fashion by a president.”2
The principle of the relationship between special ministries and community is that
the special ministries are fulfilled in the name of and within the community. The
community assigns ministers to carry out special ministries, which ought to be done in
view of the unity of the community.3
1.3. Charismatic gifts

God, through the prophet Joel, promised that in the messianic era the Spirit would
be poured upon all mankind: “Then afterward I will pour out my spirit upon all mankind.
Your sons and daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young
men shall see visions. Even upon the servants and the handmaids, in those days, I will
pour out my Spirit” (Joel 3: 1-2). The content of this promise is a new creation of the
people of God, a creation of the Spirit. “The Spirit calls them into life; the Spirit gives the
community the authority for its mission; the Spirit makes its living powers and the
ministries that spring from them effective; the Spirit unites, orders, and preserves it.”4
This promise is fulfilled in the New Testament era as Peter testifies in the Acts 2: 1-21.
Christians in apostolic times experienced God’s Spirit in their new life; they were
called and endowed with the gifts of the Spirit. Yet the same Spirit called them; they had
different tasks to fulfill. Not only a few but all people received the gifts of the Spirit and
particular calling: “In the messianic era not only the chosen prophets and kings but the
1
Ibid., p. 308-309.
2
Ibid., p. 309.
3
Cf. ibid., p. 310-314. The subject of the unity of the Church is already discussed above, p, 70-94.
4
Ibid., p. 294.
285
whole people of God will be filled by the living force and newly creating power of
God.”1 In this sense, every Christian is a charismatic person, who is called to place his
life at the service of the community and the kingdom. In this context, each Christian
needs to discern who, what and how he is, in order to live in harmony within the united
yet diverse charismatic community of God.
1.3.1. The vitality of the charismatic community

According to I Cor. 12: 4-11, the Spirit pours on the new creation the gifts
(charismata) of the Spirit, that is works (energies) for the new life of the new people. In I
Cor. 12: 27-31, St. Paul describes these gifts in three categories: kerygmatic powers: gifts
of the proclamation (gifts of utterance carried out by apostles, prophets, evangelists,
teachers, comforters, and admonishers; including also gifts of inspiration, ecstasies and
speaking in tongues); diaconic powers: gifts of service (gifts of healing, caring for the
sick, almsgiving, expulsion of demons); and cybernetic powers: gifts of leadership (gifts
of ruling of leaders of assemblies, of elders, and overseers).2
All these gifts have a purpose for the service of ministries in the Church. Every
member of the new people receives particular gifts, which all, though differentiated, are
important, as each part of a body is important. Therefore, there is no privileged basis for a
specific gift, “for in the one Spirit we all are baptized into one body - Jews or Greeks,
slaves or free - and we all are made to drink of one Spirit” (I Cor. 12: 13). The
charismata, thus, are given not only to each community, but also to each member. All
believers are empowered with charismata, and they should not bury them, but use them.
Each member, according to his particular circumstance, is called to render services to the
community (cf. Rom. 12:3-8).3
The doctrine of the charismata of St. Paul involves three aspects: Firstly, the
number of ministries and their particular characteristics should not be decided by
personal choice, but is determined by Jesus Christ through the present gathering and
sending forth of the messianic community. Secondly, the two most important elements
regarding the doctrine of the charismata are the Church’s openness to the diversity of the
1
Ibidem.
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Source of Life, p. 58-59; The Church in the Power of the Holy Spirit, p. 296.
3
286
Spirit’s gifts and the Church’s sole concern for the lordship of Jesus Christ. Thirdly, the
discernment of the gifts of the Spirit is vital. The Holy Spirit will continue to empower,
guide, and accompany the Church and it’s members in their journey with constant
renewal so that we may be able to discern our gifts and fulfill our vocation.
The charismata do not discriminate nor suppress the richness of cultures of each
Christian, whether Jew or Greek, but rather incorporate them, as Moltmann says: “A
Christian Gentile brings his Gentile culture into the community. Being a woman is a
charisma, which must not be surrendered in favor of male ways of thinking and
behaving.”1 Everyone has particular characteristics and potentialities; he can always
bring something good to the Church and the world. A “widow who exercises mercy is
acting just as charismatically as a ‘bishop’.”2 Furthermore the Spirit does not only respect
all believers in their cultures but also brings them to new life when they let the Spirit
seize them and make use of their gifts for the glory of God: “If a person is seized by the
Spirit of life, the whole of personal life becomes a charismatic experience. Life in this
Spirit lays hold of the whole of life as it is lived, making it living from within outwards,
and transfiguring it.”3 Moltmann says further that “in principle every human potentiality
and capacity can become charismatic through a person’s call, if only they are used in
Christ… It is not the gift that is important, but its use.”4
With the different gifts of the Spirit within the community of Christ’s people,
there is unity in diversity, however, not in uniformity. The unity in diversity is possible
and necessary in the community because there is only one Holy Spirit who unites diverse
believers and the diversity includes and brings believers together. In other words, if all
believers are the same, there will be indifference among them and they will become
mutually superfluous. On the contrary, their difference becomes constitutive of the unity.5
Moltmann also stresses the goodness and benefits of charismatic experiences not
only for the community but also for the individuals involved. He discusses two particular
charismatic experiences of Christians, namely speaking in tongues and healing of the
sick, which both have personal and communal characteristics.
1
Ibid., p. 57-58.
2
3
4
5
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Source of Life, p. 59-60.
287
1.3.2. Speaking in tongues

Scripture recounts that the Christians of the first congregations experienced
speaking in tongues (cf. Acts 2). It is unquestionable that today the same phenomenon is
happening in various Churches.
Moltmann thinks that “speaking with tongues is an inward possession by the
Spirit which is so strong that it can no longer find expression in comprehensible
language, and breaks out into sighing, shouting and incomprehensible speech.”1 He
believes that in the event of speaking in tongues, the Spirit loosens the tongues of those
who had been heretofore dumb in the sense that they had been unable to talk and move
spontaneously to express their presence in the Church.
According to Moltmann, it is up to the Churches to allow people to express their
personal testimonies and experiences; otherwise, they will remain dumb and passive. The
Church needs to let people say that it is their own Church.2
However, he also complains that the charismatics seem to maintain themselves in
a private and personal relationship with God and avoid political, public involvement in
the world. They need to be open to the world by intervening in socio-political affairs.3
1.3.3. Healing the sick

Healing the sick was Jesus’ principle activity along with teaching. He also
commissioned his disciples to proclaim the good news and heal the sick. Therefore,
healing the sick is one of the most important charges of the Church. It happened in the
early Church and it still happens today, particularly within charismatic communities.
Healing the sick is often considered as miraculous, but in fact it is not miraculous
at all within the kingdom already inaugurated by Jesus. Jesus proclaimed the kingdom not
only in words but also in healing. Today, if we consider healing the sick as miraculous it
is because we are living in an untransformed world of death. In other words, healing the
sick should happen naturally in the Church, in the kingdom already now present in the
world. 4
1
Ibid., p. 61. Moltmann says that he personally has not experienced the phenomenon; therefore he is
talking only from what he has witnessed.
2
Cf. ibid., p. 61-62.
3
Cf. ibid., p. 62.
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Way of Jesus Christ, p. 107; The Source of Life, p. 65.
288
According to Moltmann, healing the sick can happen because Jesus suffers for us
in the fulfillment of Is. 53: 5, as Matthew 8: 17 says: ‘He took on our infirmities and bore
our diseases’. For St. Paul, weakness and imperfection can mean strength and perfection;
he says: ‘My strength is made perfect in weakness’ (II Cor. 12:9); our suffering can mean
participation in Christ’s suffering and become a charisma: ‘For even if we are weak in
him, we shall live with him by the power of God’ (II Cor.13: 4). We too can heal others
when we take on ourselves the weaknesses of others. Furthermore, the Church and people
can heal the sick in doing two things: 1) Restoring the dignity and social relationships of
the sick by de-demonizing their diseases.1 They are not sick because they are demonized
or have sinned. 2) Changing the circumstances, conditions and social system in which
they live. Indeed, very often people get sick because of their unacceptable environment
which causes them stress, anxiety.2
In this sense, Christian communities and others need to embrace the strong and
the weak, the healthy and the sick. If we acknowledge that God also does and says
important things through the charisma of disabled people, we come to realize that the sick
and disabled are important members of the Christian community. This is what St. Paul
says in I Cor 12: 22: ‘Indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the
more necessary’. In this context, Moltmann indicates that in every community we should
see the sick and disabled; this is the sign of a strong community. On the contrary, a
community with an absence of the sick and disabled is, in fact, a disabled community.3
1.3.4. Charismatic gifts and Christian daily life

If certain Christians do not seem to express their charismatic gifts, it is for two
reasons: First, the Church remains a disciplined assembly that does not allow them to do
so; the Church is still the Church for people, which does not encourage people to
participate actively. The second reason is that it is also because they are self-centered;
they are afraid of opposition and defeat and, consequently, consciousness of their gifts
shrinks back. “People who withdraw into their own shells out of fear of setbacks, or
1
Society often stigmatises and demonises diseases (the most contemporary exemplary disease is Aids.
Many despise those who have Aids). To enable them to be healed, there is first of all the need of de-
demonising the disease.
2
3
289
because they are afraid of other people’s reaction, never get to know their own
potentialities.”1 They think that they are not capable of doing certain things because they
are afraid people may judge them.
A better way for Christians is to think that God judges that they are able to do
many things because they have received the gifts of the Spirit. They have to trust in
themselves and in the power of the Spirit.
1.4. The Church of grassroots communities

At present, we are witnessing two opposed tendencies in the life of Christian
communities. On the one hand, people are falling away from established Churches2 for
various reasons: because Churches have less grip on people: given the social conditions
of post-modernity, people find the Church unnecessary for living; because people are
more highly educated, they resent sitting passively in Church being preached to, etc. On
the other hand, while the quantity of Church attendance has diminished, we notice an
increase in the level of Church participation. Those who go to Church are participating
more. Lay-people are taking responsibility for themselves. There is active participation in
theological courses and spiritual exercises as well as involvement in liturgical,
educational, pastoral, social, political and charitable activity.
These two phenomena prompt two lifestyle tendencies3 in each Church
community: 1) The Church is opening itself up to people’s needs by initiating action
programs to serve people. The Church is reaffirming that it is caring for people.
Therefore, it has to adapt to people’s various needs. In responding to people’s needs “the
Church’s pastoral functions (are becoming) specialized, and specialized pastorates (are
grouping) together. Special pastorates for hospitals, prisons, radio, television, the armed
forces, the police, seamen, men, women, young people, missions, the ecumenical
movement and charitable work, etc.”4 However, in reality, this is not ideal in that the
1
Ibid., p. 63.
2
In my view, saying that “people are falling away from the established Churches” is probably only true in
Europe, but not on the other continents, including North America.
3
Moltmann calls the two tracks: ‘reform from above’ and ‘reform from below’. Even with ‘reform from
above’, when the Church reforms its ministries in order to respond to the people’s needs, there is no real
positive result because it is still a Church for the people, not of the people. Only ‘reform from below’ can
change the Church into a Church of the people and yield positive and permanent fruit. We will discuss
Moltmann’s Church of the people further.
4
290
Church remains a Church for people, i.e. the Church takes care of people; priests and
pastors will never be able to meet the needs of each parishioner. Therefore, it is better if
the parishioners are the actors in the Church and see that their needs and the needs of
others are addressed.
2) The second lifestyle tendency is the grass-roots community phenomenon
within parishes. This movement is well known in Latin America, where lay-people take
initiatives in forming grass-roots communities. Normally, lay-people take charge of these
grass-roots communities, although they are sometimes encouraged by the presence of
priests. We see abundant fruit from these grass-roots communities: people enjoy the
fellowship and benefit greatly from it; people’s needs are effectively addressed and
mutual help is lent regularly and promptly. Christians become aware of their gifts and
have a stake in their Church’s life; their spiritual life is nurtured not only by the
sacraments and piety but also by apostolic practice; the Church becomes more involved
in social and political activities through its members’ engagement in society; theology
takes on new directions, etc.
1.4.1. Characteristics of grassroots communities

In grass-roots communities, the laity feel they belong to the Church and the
Church belongs to them. The Church is not a Church for people, but of people. The
Medellin and Puebla documents indicate that “the Church has to examine its liberating,
salvation-creating action from the point of view of the people and their interests…
Consequently the action of the Church should not merely be directed towards the people
but should also, and above all, permit itself to be directed by the people.”1 This kind of
Church “happens best in and through basic communities and groups which live
intensively with the gospel and their neighbors and which come together in prayer and in
breaking of bread.”2 Moltmann says that there is great hope in the Church because even
1
Cf. ibid., p. 330; CELAM, Medellin (1968), Patorale de Conjunto, n. 6-7; Puebla (1979), n. 625, 627,
631, 634, particularly, n. 649. The three principle documents of CELAM cited in this thesis are taken from:
Medellin-Conclusiones (1968), San Salvador: UCA/Editores (primera edición), 1977; Puebla-La
evangelización en el presente y en el futuro de América Latina, Bogotá: Ed. de la Conferencia del
Episcopado Mexicano, 1979; Santo Domingo Conclusiones (1992), San Salvador: Imprenta Criterio, 1993.
2
291
in Catholic dioceses, grass-roots communities are arising, while congregational and

participatory communities already exist in protestant Churches.1
The basis for Christians’ active participation in their grass-roots communities is
their justifying faith through baptism. With baptism all Christians are priests, and there is
no distinction between laity and priests as in a hierarchical Church. Therefore, Christians
can only truly practice their universal priesthood through their own mature base
community, which is the congregational Church.2
Each base community (or grassroots community) lives its life in its own particular
circumstance; it forms its own history. Therefore, it can be both related to and
independent from other communities. However, Moltmann poses this question: Can the
base community be “free from the mission of the rich, the educated, the activist and the
ideologists in order to experience its own freedom in the kingdom of God?”3 He says that
the base community, by pursuing this goal, can end up breaking with its Church, but this
is not a problem because it is still united with Jesus Christ.4
1.4.2. Grassroots communities in praxis

People in grassroots communities participate actively in their Church because
they have the same goals. In order to realize these goals they criticize themselves and
correct each other. They discuss their common needs and projects. The most important
element for a grass-roots community is the practice of brotherly love. “Brotherliness
means a further contrast to secular society: in the congregation of brothers and sisters the
relationships of master and slave, of ruler and ruled are to cease… In the brotherly
community ownership and property titles are abolished: ‘And all who believed were
together and had all things in common’ (Act. 2:44).”5
1
Cf. ibid., p. 117-118. Moltmann uses alternately two terms: ‘grass-roots community and ‘base
community’, and for him, these communities are congregational communities. Indeed, they seem to be
under the influence of the charismatic Pentecostal movement; and of course, they also express their cultural
and socio-political reality (cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 329).
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Open Church, p. 114-117.
3
Ibid., p. 110.
4
Cf. ibidem. In my view, there may be an over-reaction from base communities, which want to run their
own Churches and have nothing to do with the hierarchical Church or neighbouring Churches, as
Moltmann indicates. In this regard, although Moltmann is right in emphasizing the freedom of local
communities, he seems to downplay the importance of the interdependence and relationship among the
Churches. The ideal is for people to run their own Church and retain their Church’s relationship with other
Churches at the same time.
5
292
In grassroots communities there are both ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’. Nobody can
select certain persons for his or her circle of brothers or sisters. Even in case of conflict,
bothers and sisters remain with one another as brothers and sisters. This relationship of
brothers and sisters must not allow coercion of service but requires voluntariness. It is a
sort of true friendship in which there is combination of affection, respect and concern for
others.1 If “the number of participants in voluntary groups of spiritual, diaconic,
liturgical, and political tasks is increasing,”2 better Church life becomes evident despite
the fact that Church participation is diminishing. Moltmann emphasizes the quality of
Christians’ participation in the community; although the number of Church attendants
may diminish, it is important that, those who do attend, participate more actively in
Church activities.
All Christians are called to carry on the Church’s mission. But this mission can be
fulfilled only if the laity of the congregation take charge of their own community and feel
responsible for it. Moltmann asserts: “As long as we view the congregations as local units
of the regional or denominational Church, we will remain impotent and passive. Only
when the congregations become organizationally and financially independent and out of
their own power regard themselves subjects, can the supracongregational structures do
their work without alienating the congregations.”3
The reform carried by grassroots communities takes over the reform intended by
the Church ‘from above’. In practice, the grassroots community “determines its needs and
goals, orders them, or brings them into a sequence of priorities”4 in order to serve people
effectively. The goal of the Church ‘from above’ and ‘from below’ is the same, but the
difference is that in the Church ‘from below’ people own the Church; the Church is a
1
Cf. ibid., p. 120.
2
Ibid., p. 122.
3
Ibid., p. 123. With regard to financial independence, Moltmann comments only briefly on the Church of
Germany, in which the faithful do not contribute directly to the Church, but indirectly through the religious
tax system. In this context, I think the Church in Germany is far from being independent from the State and
the faithful do not feel that they directly own their Churches. Moltmann says that in Germany, one of the
reasons for people to leave the Church is the church tax (cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the
Spirit, p. 326). The situation is no better off in Belgium than in Germany; Belgian priests receive a salary
from the government, even though Belgium Christians do not pay a ‘religious tax’ to the government.
Knowing that the government takes care of their priests and Church property, Belgian Christians contribute
very little to the Church; the consequence being that they do not feel that they own their own Churches; in
this sense, the Church is Belgium is still a Church for people.
4
293
Church of people. The work of the Church becomes the work of community. Because of
this perception of the Church, people of the grassroots community can “shape their
fortunes for themselves, through initiatives for self-help, in the local sphere, and where
they can acquire influence on the wider processes of planning and decision.”1
Moltmann proposes some renewals established Churches should put in practice in
order to become Churches of people, here are some principle points: 1) People should
belong to the Church voluntarily; for those baptized as children, they need to renew their
faith consciously.2 2) Promoting fellowship within a manageably sized community in
which people can get to know one another and foster friendship. 3) The Lord’s Supper
should again become the center of the worship service.3 4) In the worship service, people
in the congregation should greet one another. 5) Instead of being reserved to the minister,
there should be more opportunities for the congregation to pray aloud and address the
Mass or worship service. People should be encouraged to express themselves
spontaneously. 6) There should be frequent festivals or community gatherings. 7) People
should be free to form free associations.4
As long as grassroots communities do not become “elitist sects”, they stand a
good chance of becoming better Churches, given the condition that, aside from living in a
simple communion of saints (a fellowship of believers) and carrying out tasks in the
social process, they develop a new theological concept of the Church, i.e. the Church is a
Church of the people.5 In many areas on the American continent, we can see both tracks
of Church life at the same time within parishes. This gives hope to the Church, for the
needs of the people are met both by Church leaders and members.
1.4.3. Renewal of grassroots communities

The fellowship springing from the grassroots community described above seems
to be ideal for the Church community. However, when we look at it closely, it is
exclusively in the sense that only the active Christians have roles in that Church, while
1
Ibidem.
2
Here it does not mean rebaptism.
3
We do not know exactly what Moltmann wants to indicate here: a) whether he means that those
denominational Churches that do not celebrate the Lord’s Supper but only the Service of the Word should
celebrates the Lord’s Supper or b) those Churches which already celebrate the Lord’s Supper, but where it
is not the centre of the worship service.
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Open Church, p. 78-81, 123-126; The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 239.
5
Cf. ibid., p.330.
294
the unactive Christians feel excluded: “The voluntary Church, with its willing members,
would almost inevitably involve the condemnation of the unwilling.”1 Furthermore, the
grass-roots community often risks becoming the old official Church when the old
hierarchy is replaced by the hierarchy of laymen, with “new hierarchical groupings of
laymen springing up from the core to the fringe.”2 Therefore, it is not perfect; we need to
look for another solution. Moltmann indicates that we cannot get rid off the traditional
form of the Church, but we should combine elements of both ‘the Church from above’
and ‘the Church from below’. In fact, if the Church is catholic, it has to embrace both
active and passive Christians.
The Church has to be reformed from above and below at the same time. From
above, “the Church should be free from concern about its institutional survival in order to
turn without reserve to the needs of men and women.”3 From below, the Church has to be
seen as an event, i.e. the laity should form the core groups in the congregational
community and be capable of fraternal action within the community and towards the
outside world. Moltmann calls this reformed Church, the double ecclesiology - the
Church as an institution and an event - that practices the double strategies: administration
both from above and from below.
With reformation from above and below, the Church becomes a congregational
Church which includes all the baptized - the active and passive Christians- and is open
for other people through good example, evangelization and acts of liberation. In this
Church all people have freedom to contribute their gifts and talents; they feel they belong
to the Church and decide its courses of actions according to the priority of needs. In this
Church, the leaders - particularly the clergy- see for the needs of people as a priority with
a view to the kingdom of God.4
1.5. The Church of fellowship

When the congregation gathers at the Lord’s Table for the purpose of
participating in the proclamation of the Word and partaking in the breaking of the bread,
they are united in fellowship. However, this fellowship needs to express itself in a visible
1
Ibid., p.333.
2
Ibidem.
3
Ibid., p. 327.
4
Cf. ibid., p. 332-336.
295
way of life in the spirit of love, with mutual concern and devotion for one another. The
Word and sacraments are the source of the fellowship, but that fellowship does not
happen only at the Table, it also extends to all spaces and all times too.1
The two other terms, ‘brotherliness’ and ‘friendship’ are the concrete expressions
of this fellowship. In ‘brotherliness’ there is no distinction between members of the
community based on sex or privilege; all are brothers and sisters. In ‘friendship’ members
of the community become friends because out of free choice. They remain friends as long
as they are friends of Jesus. In fact, Jesus is the source of both brotherliness and
friendship. Moltmann prefers the term ‘friendship’ because it stresses freedom: “That is
why the concept of friendship is the best way of expressing the liberating relationship
with God, and the fellowship of men and women in the spirit of freedom.”2
In the time of Constantine, when Christianity became the State religion, the
Church, in adapting itself to becoming a social organization, lost its characteristic of
fellowship: “The Church no longer organizes in independent and voluntary fellowships…
The offices of clergy and bishops become authoritative in character… Church fellowship
becomes not so much fellowship in the Church as fellowship with the Church. The
sacraments […] are interpreted in the sense of being part of the pastoral care of the
people.”3 Moltmann wants to say that in becoming a state religion, the Church had to take
responsibility for taking care of the people as a social organization does; therefore, it
became a Church for the people, not a Church of the people. When the Church is a
Church of the people, people own the Church and feel they belong to the Church; the
consequence is that they practice fellowship voluntarily. Even after the Reformation, this
status of the Church as State religion remains because the maxim ‘cuius regio, eius
religio’ was observed; the Church was still a political religion: “In the course of this
development the special form of the Church as a fellowship was lost, for there can be
little talk about fellowship, brotherliness and friendship in this Church for the whole
people.”4
1
Cf. ibid., p. 315.
2
Ibid., p. 316.
3
Ibid., p. 318.
4
Ibid., p. 319.
296
Today the Church needs to rediscover the life of free-willing fellowship, as

described in the New Testament: “In the community of brethren there is no more lordship
or slavery: ‘It shall not be so among you’ (Matt. 20:26). In the community of brethren the
greed for possessions and the claim to personal property come to an end: ‘And all who
believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and
goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. And day by day, [they attended] the
temple together and [broke] bread in their homes’ (Acts 2:44-46).”1
In order to accomplish this ideal fellowship in the Church community, there is
need of a rebirth of practical fellowship. Of course there is also need of reform of
evangelization and administration of the sacraments and ministries, but the reform of
fellowship has to be the starting point.2 Throughout the history of the Church, there have
been many movements of reformation.
1.5.1. Fellowship of the Holy Spirit

At the end of the second letter to the community of Corinth, St. Paul greets and
blesses them, saying: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the
fellowship of the holy Spirit be with all of You” (II Cor. 13:13). St. Paul wishes that the
grace, the love and the fellowship of the Holy Trinity be with them. In this blessing of St.
Paul, we understand that God - the Holy Spirit - in person wants to enter into fellowship
with his people. “He enters into fellowship with believers and draws them into fellowship
with him. He is capable of fellowship, and willing for fellowship.”3
1.5.1.1. Fellowship according to the Trinitarian concept

The Church and Christians participate in the fellowship of the Spirit. But what is
the fellowship of the Spirit?
The term ‘the fellowship of the Spirit’ can have two meanings: 1) the fellowship
within the Holy Spirit who is open to the people, and 2) the fellowship of human beings
with the Holy Spirit; this meaning is called ‘fellowship with the Holy Spirit’.
The fellowship of the Spirit has to be understood in the context of Trinitarian
fellowship. The fellowship of the Spirit is not merely a gift of the Holy Spirit, but
1
Ibid., p. 315.
2
Cf. ibid., p. 317.
3
J. MOLTMANN, The Source of Life, p. 89; cf. The Spirit of Life, p. 217.
297
expresses the “eternal, essential nature of the Spirit himself… He himself issues from the
fellowship with the Father and the Son, and the fellowship into which he enters with
believers corresponds to his fellowship with the Father and the Son, and is therefore a
Trinitarian fellowship.”1
The fellowship within the Trinity is a fellowship of diversity in unity, perichoretic
unity.2 Human beings are invited to enter into the fellowship of the Spirit. The fellowship
with the Spirit, if understood in terms of Trinitarian unity, “is not merely an external
bond joining human nature with the divine essence. It issues from the essential inward
community of the triune God, in all the richness of its relationships; and it throws this
community open for human beings.”3
According to Moltmann, in the Church we can find a fellowship of the Spirit that
does not give priority either to the communal or personal dimension of fellowship. “The
true unity of the Church is an image of the perichoretic unity of the Trinity, so it can
neither be a collective consciousness which represses the individuality of the person, nor
an individual consciousness which neglects what is in common.”4 Moltmann comments
that both Schleiermacher and J. Ratzinger fall short in describing the fellowship of the
Spirit. Schleiermacher considers the fellowship of the Spirit as ‘the common Spirit’ of the
Christian congregation resulting from the divine-human union in the Church, but
disregards the personal fellowship each believer has with the Holy Spirit. In the same
direction as Schleiermacher, Ratzinger stresses the common unity of the community,
saying that individuals surrenders their ‘old isolated ego subjectivity’.5
Moltmann says it is not right that Protestant theology emphasizes individualism
and Catholic theology ecclesiastical collectivism. This fellowship has to embrace both
collectivism and individuality. “The true unity of believers in the fellowship of the Spirit
is an image and reflection of the Triunity of God, and God’s fellowship in differing
personal relations.”6
1
2
See the section of the perichoretic unity of the Trinity and the unity of the Church, in this thesis, p. 71-73.
3
4
Ibid., p. 224.
5
Cf. ibid., p. 222-225; cf. F. SCHLEIERMACHER, Der Christliche Glauben (2 Auflage 1830-1831),
reprinted, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002.; J. RATZINGER, Einführung in das Christentum, Munich: Kösel, 1968,
p. 194f.; J. RATZINGER, “Theologie und Kirche” in Communio 15, 1986, p. 515-533, at 518.
6
298
Moltmann observes that traditional ecclesiology has focused on the authority of

ministry in the Church, which is founded in “the doctrine of monarchical episcopate
which Ignatius of Antioch developed and which led to the onesidedness in the concept of
the Church… The principle of the monarchical episcopate was ‘one bishop, one
community… That certainly guarantees the unity of the community, but it also ties the
Spirit to the ministry.”1 This model of Church community hinders the fellowship of the
Holy Spirit, which makes the Church a charismatic community. “The charismatic
community does not find its unity in the monarchical episcopate or in the universal
episcopate of the Pope, but already in the fellowship of the Son with the Father in which
the Holy Spirit is included.”2 If ecclesiology understands the Church as a community
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the fellowship of the Trinity in the perichoretic
sense, it will encourage all members of the Church to make use of the charismatic gifts of
the Holy Spirit. All will accept one another and are respected as brothers and sisters in
the community of fellowship in the Spirit.
1.5.1.2. The Church in the fellowship of the Spirit

The Holy Spirit takes initiatives to get involved in our lives with tenderness and
care, and we respond to him with our joys and pains. With fellowship in the Spirit, we
experience the nearness of God, and this fellowship is the representation of fellowship in
the kingdom; we already participate in fellowship with God, although only in an
imperfect way: “So in the Spirit’s fellowship with us is hidden his eternal fellowship with
Christ and the Father of Jesus Christ… So in the fellowship of the Spirit we are linked
with the triune God, not externally but inwardly.”3
In the fellowship of the Spirit, Christians remain as individuals with their own
personality, gifts and charges; the Holy Spirit animates their individual life. “Fellowship
does not take by force and possess. It liberates, and draws others into the relationships
that are essentially its own. Fellowship means opening ourselves for one another, giving
one another a share in ourselves. It creates respect for one another. Fellowship lives in
1
J. MOLTMANN, History and the Triune God, p. 63.
2
Ibidem.
3
J. MOLTMANN, The Source of Life, p. 90
299
reciprocal participation and from mutual recognition.”1 For Christians, if they want to
apply the teaching of the Gospel with regard to fellowship and friendship, they have to
follow the example of Jesus who “was the friend of sinners and tax-collectors” (Lk.
7:34). St. Paul also teaches: “Accept one another as Christ has accepted you, for the glory
of God” (Rom. 15: 7). Therefore, according to Christian teaching, friendship and
fellowship respect the diversity of people.
However, the communal dimension is also as important as the individual one; the
Holy Spirit animates the common life of believers who are bound together for the unity
of the community. In the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, there is unity, but this unity
respects the diversity of individual believers.2
When these two dimensions (individual and communal) of unity are respected, in
the fellowship of the Spirit, Christians will be able to live “in reciprocal participation and
mutual acceptance. Fellowship springs up when people who are different find something
in common, and when something in common is shared by different people.”3 They share
the Church’s mission and each other’s lives while taking on different responsibilities.
Moltmann says that fellowship cannot exist among people who are alike, because they
will soon become indifferent to one other; but it can only exist among those who are
unlike, for, being unlike, they take interest in one other.4
The fellowship of the Spirit is experienced in gathering people of different
generations and sexes into the Church.5 This fellowship can be realized only if everyone
is allowed to make use of his own gifts of the Spirit, who is present in every flesh (cf.
Acts. 2: 2-17f.; Joel 2: 28-30). In the community of the fellowship of the Spirit, there will
be trust among generations; there will be women in the hierarchy. There will be no true
fellowship in the Church if women are not allowed to participate at all levels of Church
ministries and administration or if either the young or old generations are not allowed to
contribute their particular gifts and talents.
1
Ibid., p. 217.
2
Ibid., p. 91-92.
3
Ibid., p. 89; cf. The Spirit of Life, p. 217.
4
5
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “The Wealth of Gifts of the Spirit and their Christian Identity”, p. 30. The fellowship
between people of generations is already studied in the section the community of generations in this thesis,
p. 232-234.
300
People of the Church community can and should form the circle of friendship and
fellowship both within the Church and outside the Church community, even with those
who are different from them, even in faith.1 With the experience of the Spirit’s
fellowship, believers share the fellowship among themselves and with the world. Thus,
two movements come into existence: fellowship of the Church within the Church and
fellowship of the Church within the world.
The Church will not be truthful to its nature if it does not send its members out
into the world to promote fellowship in the world. In fact, the fellowship of the Spirit
does not limit itself to the Church, but extends to the rest of the world. In this sense, the
Church’s fellowship comprises fellowship in the world. Although one may distinguish
gathering in the Church from the sending out into the world, these two dimensions of
Christian life belong to the fellowship of the Spirit; therefore, one cannot practice one
without the other. Moltmann says: “Christian life in the everyday world is just as
important as the gathering of the congregation for worship… The gathering of Christians
for worship serves to build up Christian existence in different social relationships of life
and to give it bearings. The gathering for worship serves the sending into the world, and
it is this sending which leads into the full life of the Spirit.”2 Additionally, Moltmann
includes all creatures in the fellowship of the Spirit.3
In order to promote fellowship in the world, the Church needs to transform the
‘the Church for the people’ into ‘the Church of the people’. Only in ‘the Church of the
people’, can believers really have the fellowship of the Spirit, and consequently can take
charge of programs for fellowship in the world they are sent into.4 Of course, the
Church’s fellowship in the world presupposes fellowship within the Church, which can
be accomplished only in a Church of the people. Moltmann refers to the evangelical
revival movement in Germany where voluntary religious fellowships of believers grew
up. In this Church, “the pattern of pastoral welfare was replaced by personal adherence to
the faith; the public ministry gave way to the personal witness of the brethren; and the
prayer meetings took the place of public worship. Faith no longer meant being one of
1
2
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Spirit of Life, p. 219, 225-228.
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Source of Life, p. 96-97.
301
recipients of the pastoral care exercised by the Church; it meant personal experience and
decision. Here the old vertical scheme of proclamation was replaced by a horizontal
scheme of communication among group of believers. In place of the pastoral care of the
whole population, the fellowship of believers developed a missionary relationship to non-
believers.”1
1.5.2. Congregation of the sects

If people are expecting the Church to be a congregation in which there is real
fellowship, the Churches of the sects2 responds to their needs promptly. If the established
Churches postpone the fulfillment of promises until the next world, Churches of sects
will not wait until in the next world, but act in responding to the needs of the people, right
now, in this world.3
Moltmann distinguishes the reforming sects from the prophetic sects. The
reforming sects glorify ‘the golden age of the primitive Church’ and advocate a direct
relationship to Jesus through the charismatic experience of the Spirit. Because they base
themselves on their personal relationship with God, they challenge the objective authority
of priests and other means of grace. The prophetic sects anticipate the consummation of
the Church, which, by pointing beyond itself to the kingdom, will come to an end. They
anticipate a post-Christian messianism and claim to be bearers of the Spirit promised by
Jesus Christ.4 Because the established Churches have been tied to bourgeois society and
are ‘pastoral Churches’, they are not really attractive to people; the consequence being
that the sects, who conduct themselves as congregational Churches, are enthusiastically
welcomed, because they offer the people fellowship.
Moltmann indicates that it is as a matter of course that sects come to the fore
because they represent a kind of Church reform which reacts to a Christianity
1
2
Moltmann indicates that the conservative community can be called a ‘sect’, because people of this
community refuse to get involved in the world; on the contrary, they hold on to the traditional identity of
only taking care of their own souls. They are becoming a smaller group compared to the larger group of the
participatory community that gets involved in moral and political life with a view to changing the world
(cf. J. MOLTMANN, Theology of Joy, London: SCM Press, 1992, p. 77).
3
In fact, there are different types of sects: some expect imminent Parousia and therefore reject the present
world; others attract people only through meeting their material needs. However, both types cultivate the
life of fellowship (cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 319).
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 320. Sects already existed in the early
Church, such as Montanism.
302
(mainstream established Churches) which “departs from its beginnings in order to adapt
itself to the present-day state…[and] surrenders its messianic hope.”1 However,
Moltmann also sees a negative characteristic of these sects, for “both the reforming and
the prophetic sects, with their criticism of the Church’s worldliness, always repress the
elements of Christian mission and love which are open to the world.”2 They take good
care of their own members and those who are willing to become members, but avoid
ministering to the rest of the world.3
1.5.3. Religious communities

According to the gospel, the Church is called to be open to the world, and
Christians are called to follow Jesus’ discipleship and give up the ties to the world (cf.
Matt. 10: 37-39; 19:16-30). “That is why asceticism and the eremitical form of Christian
life grew up side by side with the decision for the Church open to the world. Examples of
a discipleship of Jesus demonstrated through renunciation of the world are to be found
from the very beginning in the Christian communities.”4
Moltmann praises the life of the ascetic and monastic religious: “The early
wandering ascetics (Didache 11:5f.) saw themselves as Jesus’ disciples and became the
vehicles of mission. In their homelessness they followed the fate of the Son of Man.
Their celibacy gave them freedom to devote themselves completely to the service of
Christ. Taking the Sermon on the Mount as their rule, they sought absolute righteousness
in undivided self-surrender to the mission for which Christ sent them forth.”5 Those
Christian hermits left the world and lived in fellowship with Christ; they also contributed
to the Church in the field of education and pastoral care.
Religious people have an influence on the laity who, wanting to follow their
example, lead a life of simple discipleship and even a communitarian life and also a life
1
Ibid., p. 321.
2
Ibidem.
3
If Moltmann’s comment is true, although sects emphasize fellowship, this fellowship limits its activities
within the boundaries of their own Churches; therefore, the sects do not avoid the problem of being
Churches for themselves. However, I think Moltmann’s observation is not correct. I observe that the
Churches of the sects, in reacting to the established Churches that seem to lack involvement in the mission
of love and charity towards the poor, engage actively in charity towards those who do not even belong to
their Churches; and for that reason are welcomed, although that may only be their strategy for proselyting.
4
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 222
5
Ibid., p. 322.
303
of ministry, devoting themselves to the care of the sick, the poor, the bereaved and others
in need. Moltmann writes: “The call to follow Jesus and the call to full commitment to
the common life through the religious orders and monasteries had their effect on the rest
of the Church too, continually stimulating new reforms of the form of the Church as a
fellowship.”1 Moltmann says that “without them (the hermits, the wandering ascetics, the
monastic communities and the lay brotherhoods) the Church opened to the world would
probably have been transformed without resistance into the religion of a society.”2
The reason for the disappearance of the ascetic and monastic forms of Christian
life in Protestant Churches is “the Reformers’ doctrine of justification: every baptized
Christian, every believer, is called to the status of a true Christian. Consequently there are
not two different ways of Christian existence.”3 Justifying faith makes the same call to all
Christians; the call to discipleship and to common life must be applied to every Christian
and cannot be preserved only to religious orders. However, Moltmann comments that
“the Reformed Churches, apart from ‘the Church under the cross’ and refugee
communities, have hardly been able to realize the principle of the voluntary
congregation… The established Protestant Churches, against their will, became more
deeply dependent on society and the ruling authorities than before.”4
1.5.4. The Church’s fellowship for and with all people

Under the influence of the living Spirit, Christians are invited to participate in
different ministries in the Church; they may also be inspired and encouraged to co-
operate with non-Christians outside their Christian community in order to render their
services to the world by participating in socio-political groups, always in view of the
kingdom of God.
Other than the activities of diverse ministries in which all Christians, by virtue of
their baptism, are called to participate voluntarily, in the Church there are also other
ministries which are offered to those who are in need: the ministry of bereavement, the
1
Ibid., p. 323.
2
Ibid., p. 324. Moltmann does not comment on whether or not Protestant Churches should bring back the
religious forms of life. Here the issues of Jesus’ call to religious life, Church tradition and celibacy are
under consideration.
3
Ibidem.
4
Ibidem.
304
ministry of the divorced, of single parents, of the drug addicted, of those infected by HIV,
etc. Moltmann calls them ‘self-help groups’.
1.5.4.1. Self-help groups inside the Church community

People who come to these groups have the same needs and feel that they can help
one another. In general, they run their own groups. According to Moltmann, the first and
most essential practice among people in these self-help groups is mutual consolation;
they share with one another without reserve what they all experience. The second practice
is counseling, which the Church also often offers. Family member involvement is also
extremely helpful, because in those people the afflicted can find trust.
Those people are also afflicted because of the prejudice of others. Therefore, in
order to help them heal, the first thing to do is to erase that prejudice. Moltmann writes:
“The counseling centers have therefore first of all to appeal for confidence, and have to
break down existing prejudices in Church and society before they can do anything; for
mistrust is a part of the distress which afflicts people in these situations.”1
The Church needs to offer the opportunity for meeting, discussion and sharing
between the two sorts of people: the afflicted and the non-afflicted, so that people can
learn to live together within the larger community. Once the afflicted are accepted into
the community, the whole community benefits from it; both Christians belonging and not
belonging to the groups benefit from the existence of those self-help groups.
Furthermore, it is important to note that these self-help groups find facilities in the
Church, but are not exclusively reserved to Christians, and are also open to non-
Christians.
1.5.4.2. Fellowship outside the Church community

The Church’s fellowship is not only meant for Church members but is also for the
entire world. The fellowship with the Holy Spirit that Christians receive, cannot but
produce action. Therefore, the fellowship of the Spirit has influence not only in the
Church, but also in the world, on both Christians and non-Christians.
Sometimes a local Christian community cannot accommodate as many socio-
political groups as Christians want to participate in. In that case, Christians may go out of
1
305
their own Christian community and participate in varied civil groups, both Christians and
non-Christians participate in. There are innumerable groups of this kind; they all are
characterized by ‘actions’.
In fellowship outside the Church community there are different people of diverse
characters and gifts, but with the same needs, concerns and inspirations. “They are bound
together by their common awareness of the problem which concerns them, and through
common action. They are often groups of like-minded people, which require total
commitment.”1
What stimulates Christians to participate in these groups is the gospel, where they
find the socio-political virtue these groups aspire to. Here are some examples: they can
find analogies “between the Sermon on the Mount and peace politics, between reverence
for life and the integrity of nature, between justice and policies affecting the Third
World.”2
Christians participating in these groups may sometimes heighten tensions back in
their own Church community, particularly in traditional congregations centered on
celebrating the Word and the sacraments. That kind of community is often afraid that its
faith may be politicized. But Christians under the influence of the life-creating Spirit are
ready to confront such tensions and are willing to get involved in socio-political action.
However, at the same time, the group participating Christians may also have a positive
effect within their own Church. They make their Church reflect on the significance and
method of its true mission, and more sensitive to the common needs of the world.
Moltmann says that there are “two ways of access to the community of Christ. On the one
hand through faith in Christ, mediated through Word, sacrament and fellowship; on the
other hand through shared work for the kingdom of God, for the sake of which the
Church of Christ is there.”3 Moltmann’s statement is understandable if we consider the
Church within the framework of the kingdom of God. “What the groups who work for
justice, peace and integrity of creation are doing is ‘Kingdom of God work’… Christian
1
Ibid., p. 242.
2
Ibidem.
3
Ibid., p. 242-243.
306
congregations which are led beyond their own frontiers through the experience of the
Spirit, will recognize and respect the groups in the light of this wider horizon.”1
2. THE CHURCH IN ITS MEDIATIONS OF SALVATION

Moltmann, referring to the Augsburg Confession, Article VII, which pronounces:
“the Church is the assembly of all believers among whom the gospel is preached in its
purity and the holy sacraments are administered according to the gospel”, says that the
two factors of preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments distinguish the
Church from an association or a club.2
There are two differences regarding the theology of the doctrine of the sacraments
between Roman Catholic and Protestant theology: the foundation and the number of
sacraments. According to Karl Barth, the foundation of a sacrament is Jesus. Jesus is the
only sacrament. For Karl Rahner, the Church is the sacrament of salvation. There are
seven sacraments in the Catholic Church, whereas according to the Protestant tradition,
proclamation, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper are means of salvation, whereas only
baptism and the Lord’s Supper are sacraments.3
2.1. The gospel

For those Christian Churches that celebrate the Eucharist, the proclamation of the
gospel occupies the center of the celebration. For other Christian Churches that do not
celebrate the Eucharist, the gospel is even more essential for them, for people in those
Churches come to the worship service with the sole purpose of hearing the gospel.
1
Ibid., p. 243.
2
J. MOLTMANN, The Open Church, p. 118-119. He adds that the Church community also needs to
accomplish another deed, the practice of love.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 199-202; Cf. K. BARTH, “Die Lehre von den
Sacramenten” in Zwischen den Zeiten 7, 1929, p. 439; E. JÜNGEL and K. RAHNER, Was ist ein Sacrament?
Vorstöße zur Verständigung, Freiburg : Herder, 1971, p. 69. With regard to the nature of a sacrament, for
Moltmann, “sacraments count as ‘holy rites or actions’ ordained by God through which saving grace is
appropriated or people are given the certainty of that grace through the medium of the visible signs”( J.
MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 227). With regard to the relationship between the
Word and the sacrament, Moltmann says: “Christ counts as the efficient cause of salvation, whereas
baptism in the power of the Spirit is the instrument. The mediation through the Word thus has pre-eminent
importance, because the Word can exist without the sacraments but the sacraments cannot exist without the
Word” (J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 227, cf. p. 214-215). According to
Moltmann, confirmation and ordination are not sacraments, but are only rites of calling to special ministries
and conferring special gifts. Confirmation and ordination are already implicit in baptism (cf. J.
MOLTMANN, The Experiences in Theology, p. 287; The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 314).
307
The term ‘gospel’ is used in St. Paul to indicate the saving message of Jesus
Christ, and its content is Christ himself.1 For St. Paul, the gospel has an eschatological
character. It is now present in the new and last era: “The gospel now means the
redeeming message of salvation, which brings to expression and makes credible the
salvation which comes from God through Christ and has now at last become universal
and open to all.”2 R. Bultmann regards the proclamation of the gospel as an
eschatological invitation to salvation. One has to make a decision for his salvation when
he encounters the self-revelation of God. He must either accept or reject the proposal of
salvation. In this sense, the gospel is a means of salvation for man.3
The gospel should be accessible to all and the proclamation should become
exigent and public. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the source of universal liberation. All
creatures are included in the plan of salvation; all are called to become part of a new
creation: the soul and body, individuals and social conditions, human systems and
systems of nature. As a result, in welcoming the gospel of liberation, men and women
share with one another their life in fellowship and in community. They receive the gospel
of Jesus and now proclaim it to others.
2.1.1. Proclaiming the gospel

The Church has the mission of proclaiming the gospel and it grows with the
practice of this mission. With teaching, preaching and a witness to life the Church
proclaims the gospel that conveys the history of Christ as well as his kingdom.
There are two problems concerning the proclamation of the gospel: the
theological problem has to do with determining the relationship between word and truth;
the practical problem involves how a person obtains freedom and authorization to preach
about Jesus. The first problem is a problem of language: with regards to the evolution of
language and the ability of individual persons, does man always express truth through
language? With regard to the second problem, Moltmann says: “it is only the truth of the
1
One may distinguish “gospel” from “gospels.” The expression “gospels” connotes the accounts of the
historical Jesus, the telling of the history of Jesus. However, Moltmann notes that E. Käsemann stresses the
complementarity between the gospel and the gospels. The two reinforce one another. The gospel keeps the
gospels from becoming exclusively retellings of the earthly life of Jesus. The gospels prevent the preached
Jesus from becoming an abstract object of faith (cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit,
p. 219-220; E. KÄSEMANN, New Testament Questions of Today, London: SCM Press, 1969, p. 66).
2
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. p. 218.
3
Cf. ibid., p. 210-212; R. BULTMANN, Faith and Understanding, p. 286f.
308
proclamation that makes us free for the proclamation, and it is only the liberation that has
been experienced which gives authority for liberating narration.”1
Moltmann says that in Europe, the proclamation of the gospel belongs to the
public ministry of priests and pastors, whose offices are considered as equal to other
public offices. This public office of the proclamation of the gospel corresponds to a
hierarchical structure, which runs from top down. In this context, in the name of the
Church, priests and pastors become the caretakers of individuals and families. However,
Moltmann says that in this framework, “the gospel is in danger of losing its critical and
liberating power and of being reduced to religious consolation, to morality and the
reaching of the people.”2
But recently, an evangelical revival movement initiated by voluntary religious
fellowships of believers is changing the method of proclamation. According to
Moltmann, the proclamation of the gospel is most effectively accomplished by the
messianic community of fellowship, which narrates the story of Jesus Christ: “It is a
‘story-telling fellowship’, which continually wins its own freedom from the stories and
myths of the society in which it lives, from the present realization of this story of Christ.
It is a fellowship of hope, which finds freedom from the perspectives of its society
through the perspectives of the kingdom of God.”3 When the community of fellowship
lives in freedom, it can effectively proclaim the gospel of freedom to the world. “This
community, with the powers that it has, already realizes the possibilities of the messianic
era, which brings the gospel of the kingdom to the poor, which proclaims the lifting up of
the downtrodden to the lowly, and begins the glorification of the coming God through
actions of hope in the fellowship of the poor.”4
2.1.2. The gospel and the messianic era

Terms such as ‘the Word of God’, ‘proclamation’ and ‘preaching’ describe only
partial aspects of the whole meaning of the gospel. According to Moltmann, the aspect of
the history of Jesus Christ is part of the contents of the gospel: “Because the gospel has
1
2
Ibid., p. 224.
3
Ibid., p. 225.
4
Ibidem.
309
the eschatologically interpreted history of Christ as its content, the history of Christ is
also the presupposition for the public proclamation of the gospel.”1
The gospel is the preliminary presence of the exalted Lord who is to come; it “is
the word in which God reveals his coming and makes his victory and final lordship over
his creation known. It will be the word which frees captives and brings the nations to
peace.”2 In this sense, the gospel announces the presence of the messianic era, i.e. the era
at the end of history, in which God liberates men. Through the proclamation of the
history of Christ, “the gospel has already become accessible for everyone in faith; and it
can be experienced in the new potentialities of the Spirit.”3
Moltmann indicates that the aspect of liberation is emphasized in this messianic
era. More specifically, proclamation of the gospel is the proclamation of Jesus - who is a
liberator. The gospel has a universal dimension. It influences both body and soul,
individuals and social conditions, human and natural systems. “The history of Christ, his
suffering to set the world free and his resurrection for its justification, are the guarantee
that it is time to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom to the poor, as well as a blessing on
those that mourn, the forgiveness of sins and the liberation of captives.”4
Although we still see suffering and imperfection in the world, we should not
disregard what happens to Jesus Christ who suffered death. However, his resurrection and
his coming are a protest against the suffering he and the world have had to endure. But “it
is only out of this protest against the contradiction that the correspondences will be
created which, as ‘signs and wonders’, are the proof of the messianic era.”5 In this
messianic era, we cannot expect that there will be no more suffering, but it supposes
suffering so that liberation can be experienced through recognizance of the history of
Jesus Christ who suffered, died and resurrected, and is to come. Liberation, in this
messianic era, includes not only freedom from what is suffering and negative, but also the
forgiveness of sins, which renders man able to respond to fellowship with God and with
others. “Consequently, the divine pardon stands at the center of every proclamation of the
gospel, the pardon that liberates men and women from the compulsion of evil, from the
1
Ibid., p. 220.
2
Ibid., p. 217.
3
Ibid., p. 220.
4
Ibid., p. 221.
5
Ibidem.
310
control of ‘the power’, from fear of forsakenness, and from the apathy of the empty life,
and that gives them courage for a new life for the kingdom in fellowship with Christ.”1
2.2. Baptism
Baptism unites all Christians in the community of Jesus Christ. If today we
witness many different theological and ecclesiastical views, contributing causes to
Church division, we must also acknowledge that baptism unites Churches and Christians.
While there are some denominational Churches which do not celebrate the Eucharist, all
Churches administer the sacrament of baptism. With this observation in mind, we see that
baptism is of great importance in Church life (we do not disregard the importance of the
Eucharist). At the same time, we also see some diverse interpretations and practices of
baptism among Christian Churches.
2.2.1. The Christian meaning of baptism

Christian baptism is connected with the baptism of repentance of John the Baptist.
He announced the coming of the kingdom of heaven and invited people to repent. The
baptism of John the Baptist is the eschatological sign of repentance from sin in order to
avoid the judgment of God, and enter the freedom of divine rule in the kingdom of God.
Coming to the Jordan for baptism was the sign of acknowledgement of one’s own
sinfulness (cf. Matt. 3: 2-6). This was the first step in a process of achieving salvation.
Jesus’ coming to John to be baptized is also noteworthy. In fact, “Jesus’ baptism
by John was from the very beginning constitutive for the acceptance and taking over of
John the Baptist’s eschatology - his teaching about the coming rule of God - by Jesus and
the Christian community.”2 Regarding the establishment of baptism by Jesus, J.
Moltmann says: “we know nothing about any baptismal practice on the part of Jesus and
his disciples. He himself did not baptize.”3
1
Ibid., p. 223.
2
Ibid., p. 234.
3
J. Moltmann does not mention John 3:22-26 (After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of
Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing) and John 4:1-2 (Now when Jesus learned that the
Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself
was not baptizing, just his disciples), he left Judea and returned to Galilee) which report the act of baptism
practiced either by Jesus or his disciples. In my view, these two biblical passages are essential in
considering the foundation of Christian baptism. Jesus himself either practiced baptism or witnessed and
approved his disciples’ practice of baptism; this reality constitutes an essential element of the establishment
of Christian baptism.
311
If we acknowledge that Jesus did not establish baptism, then baptism by John is
significant for Christian baptism. Moltmann says: “The Christian Church’s acceptance
and heightening of John’s baptism does not go back to a particular institution on the part
of Jesus, but it does follow from Jesus’ acceptance and alteration of John’s eschatology.”1
Jesus takes the eschatological message from John with regard to repentance and the
kingdom of God; as we see both John the Baptist and Jesus preached: “Repent, for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:3; 4:17). However, Jesus deviates from John with
regard to the motive for repentance: in John it is judgment, whereas in Jesus it is
forgiveness, righteousness, and liberation from the bondage of sin. While in the baptism
of John one shows repentance, in Christian baptism one professes his faith in Jesus who
offers salvation: “Because the earthly Jesus and his gospel cannot be understood without
Jesus’ baptism by John and his parting from him, Christian baptism follows, with inner
cogency, from the eschatology of Jesus and is founded on the Church’s eschatological
profession of faith in Jesus as the Christ of God.”2
After Easter, the primitive Church3 baptized as Jesus commanded: “Go into the
whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever is baptized will be
saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16: 15-15). From that time
on, the community that believed in Jesus Christ “understood itself as ‘the holy remnant’
and therefore as the beginning of Israel in its eschatological renewal. Christian baptism
counted as being the symbol of this messianic renewal of God’s people. Where they
conceived of themselves as ‘the new people of God’, made up of Jews and Gentiles,
baptism became the emblem of the ‘new creation’ in Christ.”4
With the experience of the Holy Spirit, “christian meaning of baptism follows
from the eschatological understanding of the gospel of Jesus and the gospel about Jesus,
the Christ of God who is to come. An eschatological open Christology explains why
baptism was taken over from John and was reformed.”5
1
2
Ibidem.
3
Here Moltmann talks about the existence of the Church after Easter and before the Pentecost; this can be
an argument. Another argument concerns whether the disciples of Jesus began to baptize soon after Easter
(as Moltmann indicates) or after the Pentecost.
4
5
Ibidem.
312
Repentance is central both in the baptism of John and Christian baptism.

Although Jesus indirectly agreed with John that he did not need to be baptized, he did not
prevent John from baptizing him in order to ‘fulfill all righteousness’ (cf. Matt. 3: 14-16).
Jesus identified himself with sinners, submitting to the plan of God for the salvation of
the human race.
All four gospel authors and Saint Paul see the connection between Christian
baptism, Jesus Christ and the community of Christ. Christian baptism has its roots in the
baptism of Jesus, and it has a relationship with his story. Being baptized means dying
with Jesus for one’s own sins and rising with him. We should see the baptismal event in
the framework of the whole history of Christ - that is to say, in the framework of the
baptized, crucified, risen and coming Christ. Baptism also holds Christians open to the
future in the kingdom of God. Thus, receiving baptism entails taking charge of the
mission, i.e., proclaiming the good tidings of grace offered by Jesus. Accepting baptism
signifies belonging to the community of God, which renders liberating service to the
kingdom and brings hope to the world.
Jesus commissioned his disciples; the extent of this commission comprises both
the ministry of baptism and its universal boundary.
2.2.2. Protestant baptism theology

Jesus Christ instituted baptism as a means and grounds for salvation through
which men and women are born again to eternal life: “It is the sacrament of initiation and
the door of grace.”1 In general, Moltmann’s view of baptism is similar to that of the
Roman Catholic Church: “Because it is valid once and for all, its efficacy is not restricted
to the actual moment of baptism. Consequently the baptized person acquires the means of
repentance, through which he can regain baptismal grace daily.”2 He means that because
baptism is valid once and for all and because the ‘eternal covenant’ remains valid,
Christians cannot be rebaptized, but they can strengthen the efficacy of baptism by
repentance.
Moltmann discusses particularly infant baptism as follows:
1
Ibid., p. 227.
2
Ibid., p. 228.
313
Protestant baptismal theology supports infant baptism for two reasons: a) the
efficacy of baptism is based on the baptism itself, not on the recipient as long as it is
performed in accordance with its ordinance; b) baptism does not have to follow faith; it
can precede faith. Infants do not have to profess their faith before they are baptized, but
baptism will bring about faith in them. Of course parents of infants have to approve their
infant’s baptism.
However, according to Moltmann, if we recall the original practice of baptism in
the Church and consult the New Testament, we will see that men and women were called
to be born again. On the contrary, those Churches that practice infant baptism, do so
basing themselves on tradition, which has no biblical foundation. In this sense, the
practice of infant baptism is an open theological problem. It involved in politics.
Moltmann says: “Infant baptism is the foundation of a national Church. Through it
‘Christian society’ regenerates itself in the bond that links one generation to another.
Anyone who affirms infant baptism, for whatever theological reason, thereby affirms at
the same time this public form of the Church, or Christianity.”1 Because infant baptism
has become a tradition in certain Churches, if Churches want to abolish infant baptism,
they have to substitute another form of baptism for it, which necessarily leads to another
social form of the Church; advocates of tradition do not want to change. Furthermore, if
infant baptism is a public form and function of the Church, it also affects society; public
and social forms of baptism are closely related to politics.2
Here are the political arguments for infant baptism:
1) In the early Church there is analogy between baptism and circumcision: while
the children of Israel were received into society through the rite of circumcision, with
baptism infants were accepted into a ‘Christian society’ that was considered as the
successor to Israel and the anticipation of the kingdom of God. Because Christianity
became the state religion, it took responsibility for taking care of all citizens (Christians),
and it was important to baptize all children in order to maintain the society as united and
uniform.3
1
Ibid., p. 229.
2
Cf. ibid., p. 229
3
Cf. ibid., p. 231.
314
2) In order that rulers rule more easily, citizens must follow the religions of rulers
and chiefs of regions. To that end, baptism was accepted by whole families or tribes.1
Moltmann feels that since political motives cause society to lean towards infant
baptism, the real meaning of baptism can be distorted. Baptism cannot serve only the
interests of society; there must be respect for freedom of faith and freedom of baptism.
Moltmann goes further: “Baptism can only be practiced in accordance with its proper
meaning if the Church’s public form and function in society is altered at the same time,
and if the Church becomes recognizable and active as the messianic fellowship of
Christ.”2 By ‘public form and function’ he means that the Church attaches too much
importance to bourgeois religious form, which encourages infant baptism to the effect
that adult baptism is seen as a private, inner and personal event, concerning only the
baptized. This form and function needs to be altered, otherwise, baptism may “lose the
character of a public, confessional sign of resistance and hope.”3
Moltmann also points out theological arguments for those who support infant
baptism:
1) The teaching of the Gospel ‘He who believes and is baptized will be saved’
(Mk. 16:16) is applied in infant baptism in the sense that faith precedes baptism, because
in infant baptism, the faith of parents, godparents and the Church represents the
children’s faith. Furthermore, for the service of Christ and his kingdom, parents and
godparents carry on with tasks assigned to them. Children cannot be shut out from their
parents’ faith; parent’s faith comprises ‘the seed of faith’ of their children. “It follows
from this that parenthood is also accepted into this service through baptism. Parents have
a messianic function towards their children too, being to a special degree their
missionaries and evangelists.”4
2) Other than faith as a precondition for baptism, the other argument for infant
baptism is based on the unconditional justification God grants sinners. The prevenient
grace of God does not require infants to make their own decision. It is the ex opere
operato that causes the effect of baptism. Therefore, all children of Christian parents
1
Cf. ibidem.
2
Ibid., p. 232.
3
Ibidem.
4
Ibid., p. 229.
315
should be baptized. However, children of ‘heathen parents’ ought not be baptized,

because in their cases, faith should precede baptism, but such parents do not have faith.1
Moltmann comments that both arguments lack cogency because “baptism cannot
be without faith. Faith commits us to representative service, but it cannot be taken as
being representative for the faith of another person or as a temporary substitute for that
faith.”2
2.2.3. The fundamentals of baptismal theology

According to the Gospel of Mark, there is a relationship between the baptismal
event and the history of Jesus Christ. Christian baptism is founded in the baptism of
Jesus. The baptism of Jesus led to his whole history: transfiguration, passion and death.
The focal meaning of his baptism is “his election to be Son of God and his messianic
equipping with the power of the Holy Spirit… The divine sonship of Jesus includes
Jesus’ mission and his self-giving.”3
According to Matthew, the baptism of Jesus reveals only Jesus himself as the
Messiah: it does not yet tell us anything about Christian baptism. “Christian baptism,
according to Matthew, is based not on Jesus’ own baptism but on the missionary charge
of the exalted Christ.”4
Luke sees baptism quite differently. It comprises the baptism of John the Baptist,
which is “the prefiguration of the era of the Church.”5 The pouring of the Holy Spirit at
Jesus’ baptism (cf. Lk. 3:21ff.) and at Pentecost (cf. Acts 1:5-8) is stressed.
Paul emphasizes the fellowship of believers with Jesus Christ and among one
another. For him “baptism is the expression of belonging. Christ is crucified for you, you
are baptized in Christ’s name” (cf. I Cor. 1:10-18).6 The cross of Jesus Christ frees
Christians from the power of sin and binds them together in the community of Jesus
Christ. In baptism, “they have died to the power of sin. Just as all accusations and claims
fall when they are brought against the dead, so those who are baptized are out of reach of
the accusations of the law and the claims of power. Baptism into the death of Christ thus
1
Cf. ibid. p. 230
2
Ibidem.
3
Ibid., p. 236-237; cf. Mk. 9:7, 14:61-62, 15:39.
4
5
Ibidem.
6
Ibidem.
316
demonstrates the liberation of believers from the power of sin.”1 As in the community of
Corinth (cf. I Cor. 12), where the Spirit “sets everyone in his particular ministry and
makes him a member of the whole, so through baptism people are integrated into this
community [of Christ] and are entrusted with their particular ministry.”2
Moltmann concludes that Christian baptism can be understood only in relation to
the whole history of Jesus Christ: baptized, crucified, risen and coming. K. Barth feels
that the center of the history of salvation is the history of Jesus Christ. Because salvation
is accomplished by Jesus Christ, Christian baptism is only the sign of salvation, not the
means of salvation. Moltmann observes that this is why Barth declares the inadmissibility
of infant baptism.3 “On the other hand, Heinrich Schlier maintains that baptism is a
sacramental action, which effects the salvation of the person baptized in a causative
sense.”4 While it is true that Jesus Christ already brings about salvation, the celebration of
baptism also brings some saving effects on the person baptized, by the very fact that he is
a candidate for baptism. In this sense, according to Schlier, we should baptize children.
According to Moltmann, neither the exclusively Christological orientation of
Barth nor the ecclesiological justification of baptism of Schlier are satisfactory. It is
better to understand baptism as a representation and recognition of the salvation brought
about by Jesus “in a Trinitarian sense in the light of the eschatological gift of the Holy
Spirit: Baptism manifests the creative power of the Spirit. As a leading back into the
death of Christ it is the anticipation of the resurrection in this life.”5 In baptism, the Spirit
leads Christians in two directions: having faith in the One who creates the universe and a
new identity in the fellowship of Christ, anticipating a new life in glory in the future.6
There is the eschatological characteristic of baptism, i.e. the baptized person has
not yet obtained all that baptism offers. It is true that he has already received
righteousness and fellowship with God, but for the ultimate promises of baptism he has to
await the coming of Jesus Christ. In this sense, Moltmann says: “In baptizing men into
1
Ibid., p. 237-238.
2
Ibid., p. 238.
3
Cf. ibid., p. 238-239; K. BARTH, The Teaching of the Church regarding Baptism, London: SCM Press,
1948; Church Dogmatics, IV.3.2, p. 518, 872; IV.4, p. 3-213.
4
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 239; cf. H. SCHLIER, Die Zeit der Kirche,
Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 1958, p. 107-128.
5
6
Cf. ibid., p. 239-240.
317
the past death of Christ, it (the Church) seals men for the future of the kingdom that is
being brought by the risen Christ.”1
2.2.4. Suggestions for baptismal practices

The principle is the respect for the conscious freedom of choice for baptism.
Moltmann feels that the Church needs to move from infant baptism to adult baptism.
In order to accomplish this goal, there are some steps to follow: 1) Parents are free
to baptize their children or not. Pastors and Church staff do not have to baptize their
children if they do not want to. 2) Non-baptized children of Christian parents should be
blessed in congregational service. Within the congregation, parents should be
commissioned to serve society as well as their children. In this ways, parents will teach
their children the meaning of baptism and the ways of Christian life. 3) Christian families
belong to both the community of fellowship and support groups, which act in the world
with a view to the kingdom of God. This renders baptism vocational, in which members
of Christian families are called to give witness to the world.2
In this way, infant baptism will be positively moved to vocational baptism. In the
Church, baptism ordains all men and women to the same vocation: “By tracing priestly
ordination (sacramentum ordinis) back to baptism, Luther gave a higher status to baptism
as the sacrament of vocation: every Christian, man and woman, is a witness of faith,
called to preach and to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.”3 However, in order for all
the baptized to fulfill the vocation ordained by the sacrament, the Church “must stop
being a Church of ministers functioning on behalf of laymen, and become a charismatic
fellowship in which everyone recognized his ministry and lays hold on his charisma.
People then become ‘subjects’ within the Church, losing their position as ‘object’ of
religious welfare.”4
In fact, if Christian parents were ideally to fulfill their Christian vocation towards
their children perfectly, then their not-yet baptized children would voluntarily choose to
1
2
3
4
318
be baptized once they reach adulthood. In this sense, those who support infant baptism,
would have no difficulty in moving from infant baptism to adult baptism.1
2.3. The Lord’s Supper

The proclamation of the gospel calls men to profess their faith in Jesus Christ
through baptism. In baptism men are called to unite in the family of God and gather in
worship at the Lord’s Supper.
Whereas the Protestant Church uses the expression ‘the Lord’s supper’ which
indicates the Christological aspect of its foundation, other Churches employ other terms
such as ‘the Mass’ or ‘the Eucharist’, which point to sacrificial and worship aspect,
respectively. Moltmann adopts the expression ‘the Lord’s Supper’.2
2.3.1. Open invitation and open feast3

As the expression ‘the Lord’s Supper’ indicates, we should understand that this is
the supper of the Lord, not of the Church. The Lord gathers his people in the Church for
fellowship with him and with one another. Through this theological interpretation, we
understand that there is an open invitation to the Lord’s Supper, and the Church cannot
limit the openness of the Lord’s invitation.
This open invitation is as open as the outstretched arms of Jesus Christ on the
cross, and reaches beyond the frontiers of Christianity to all peoples of all nations. In
other words, the Church cannot use the Lord’s Supper as a place for restrictions, allowing
or forbidding certain Christians to receive communion. In this sense, there should be no
distinction between different denominations, and therefore the dialogue about
‘intercommunion’ can produce fruit only if it talks about communion with Christ who
openly invites all Christians.4 “In the Lord’s Supper Christ exercises his ministry as
1
Is this too idealistic? In my view, on the one hand no. It is realistic because it is possible for Christians to
live fully their vocation. On the other hand, we can say yes. It is too idealistic, because in our society today,
many Christians do not fulfil perfectly their vocation, and their influence on their children is minimal while
the influence of the world on them is greater; therefore, postponement of baptism risks resulting in no
baptism at all. What should we choose?
2
While the term ‘the Lord’s Supper’ designates the Christological emphasis, the term ‘Eucharist’
accentuates the aspects of worship, praise and thanksgiving. Although Moltmann’s theology of the
Eucharist expresses all these elements, he has to limit himself in choosing only one term, ‘the Lord’s
Supper’, which does not describe perfectly all theological dimensions of this ‘sacrament’.
3
‘The Lord’s Supper’ is an open invitation. This theme was also treated above in the section ‘the Eucharist
as the means for the Church’s unity in the ecumenical effort, p. 81-82.
4
319
prophet, priest, and king. He exercises it in the same way that he gave himself for the
redeeming liberation of many.”1 In this context, Moltmann says that the
acknowledgement of bishops and the pope should not be a condition for access to
communion. The Lord’s Supper should not be limited by and depend on human and
Church discipline, but should be a place for fellowship and a sign of harmony and unity,
not discord and division.2
Because it is an open feast, it is not reserved only to the righteous or the ‘faithful
of the Church’. All are invited. Moltmann indicates that baptism and confirmation should
not be counted as preconditions for admission. There are two reasons for the open
invitation to the Lord’s Supper: 1) Jesus allowed sinners and tax collectors to sit at the
same table with him. 2) It is also the open invitation to reconciliation with God (cf. I Cor.
11:27). In this sense, all sinners and the non-baptized are also invited.3 In fact, the Lord’s
Supper always points back to the Last Supper, which anticipated his death for mankind.
The Lord’s Supper is real now and has present effects, but it also anticipates the supper in
the kingdom. Therefore, the righteous as well as the unrighteous, who will be made
righteous by the presence of Christ, are invited to the Lord’s supper, as they anticipate the
fellowship of God’s kingdom. The Lord’s Supper indeed offers hope for those- sinners,
righteous and unrighteous- who respond to the open invitation of the Lord.
There are two parts to the Lord’s Supper: the proclamation of the Gospel and the
fellowship at the table. Communion cannot be a coda to the proclamation of the Word,
but the center of the celebration. Every participant should take part in the Communion,
because fellowship is expected at the Lord’s Table.
Moltmann emphasizes the element of fellowship at the Lord’s Supper, which can
really only happen if the Church is a Church belonging to the people. All participants
share at the table and also share with one another the experiences of their life: problems
and joy. The fellowship of the Lord’s Supper is not only essential to the unity of different
denominational Churches in ecumenical efforts, but also to the members of each
community. “Where does the Crucified One meet us today? Surely not just in theological
knowledge, conferences, or ecumenical meetings. He invites us to his meal where, at the
1
Ibid., p. 246.
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Open Church, p. 87-88; The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 244-246.
3
Cf. ibid., p. 259-260.
320
Lord’s Table, in a communion of eating and drinking, we experience his liberating

fellowship with the many, and hence also with us.”1 In this sense, all Christians should
have the right to respond to the open invitation to the communion at the same Table as
the Lord, and this should become the most essential element in ecumenical dialogue.
Moltmann acknowledges that “this is indeed the ‘sorepoint’ of all ecumenical efforts, but
the Lord’s Supper is also the ‘source point’ for communion between the Crucified One
and ourselves, and for our communion with each other.”2
For a feasible implementation of the open feast of the Lord’s Supper, Moltmann
proposes that the celebrant should stand behind the altar facing the people, and that it is
even better if the congregation sit around a table. Following the Lord’s Supper there
should be a common meal (agape) and discussions about the real needs of the world and
the specific tasks of the participants. In this way, the Church can respond to the open
invitation to the Lord’s Supper, which entails different dimensions: the catholicity of the
community of God, universal hope, the community’s mission to the world.3
In summary, Moltmann indicates the following particular points: a) Invitation to
the Lord’s Supper comes from the Lord, not from a Church or denomination. Therefore, a
Church cannot set conditions for admission to the Lord’s Supper. b) The theological
controversy should not become hindrance for Christians to come together for the Lord’s
Supper. In this sense, theologies of different denominations should point to what is in
common, not what divides. c) Because the Lord’s Supper is the feast of joy, it should not
be conditioned by the moral legalism of preceding confession, which judges the
worthiness or unworthiness of the participants. This practice causes many people to
exclude themselves from the feast. d) The Lord’s Supper should not be dependent on a
special ministry such as that of a priest, bishop or pope, who set norms for the legitimacy
and efficacy of the communion and make decision as to admissibility to the feast.
Moltmann says: “The acknowledgement of a ‘special’ ministry obscures Christ’s giving
of himself ‘for all’ and the fellowship of brothers and sisters into which all are to enter.
1
2
Ibidem.
3
Here Moltmann deliberately replaces the ‘Church’ with ‘the community’, because the open invitation to
the Lord’s Supper extends beyond the boundary of the Church. ‘The community’ here is the community of
the whole world.
321
Hierarchical legalism spoils the evangelical character of the Lord’ Supper just as much as
dogmatic and moral legalism.”1
e) Finally, the open invitation of the Lord’s Supper goes beyond the frontiers of
denominations and even the frontiers of Christianity. In other words, even non-Christians
can participate at the Lord’s Table.2
2.3.2. The presence of Jesus Christ

There are three ways of interpreting the presence of Jesus Christ at the Lord’s
Supper:
1) The Lord’s Supper can be understood as a remembrance feast in which we
recall the history of Jesus Christ who offered himself for our redemption. According to
this understanding, supported by Zwingli, “the bread and the wine are merely the outward
signs of our spiritual communion with Christ.”3 Moltmann comments that Zwingli is right
in this respect, for Jesus died only once on Golgotha and therefore the Lord’s Supper can
only be a memory. However, Moltmann also says that Zwingli failed to believe that there
is “the presence of the crucified one in the Spirit of the resurrection.”4 In this
interpretation, it is centered on the remembrance of Jesus Christ and communion with
Him.
2) The Lord’s Supper is the sign of the presence of Jesus Christ who has been a
man with men. “Then the bread and wine signify that which they are according to
Christ’s promise - the body and blood of Christ. Christ’s body and blood are present in
the bread and wine.”5 Jesus Christ is present in the sense that he has been exalted; His
presence permeates all things, i.e. bread and wine. In this interpretation, it is centered on
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 246. Moltmann disagrees with the practice in the
Catholic Church, where unity of the Church is linked with the ordained minister. According to him, the
gathering of a community for worship can be presided by a non-ordained minister. The unity of the Church
is assured by the presence of Christ, particularly at the Lord’s Table, not by the minister (cf. p. 397).
2
On this point, Moltmann wants to follow Pannenberg but Pannenberg says Moltmann has not grasped his
meaning. In other words, according to Pannenberg, admission to the Lord’s Supper is open only to
Christians, cf. W. PANNENBERG, Thesen zur Theologie der Kirche, München: Claudius, 1970, p. 35; W.
PANNENBERG, Systematic Theology, vol 3, p. 329.
3
4
Ibidem.
5
Ibidem. We should pay attention to what Moltmann says here: Jesus Christ is truly present in the bread
and wine. However, he does not use the term ‘transubstantiation’.
322
the real presence of Jesus Christ; however, there is no transubstantiation of bread and
wine.1
3) The Lord’s Supper is the symbol of the beginning of the banquet of the
kingdom. For Moltmann, the bread broken is a foretoken of peace in the kingdom, and
the wine is a foretoken of hope for all nations. Those who participate in the Lord’s
Supper, come to celebrate a love feast for hope, peace and righteousness in the world.
Hope in the kingdom has to be based on remembrance of Christ’s giving himself up to
death. “The Lord’s Supper confers fellowship with the crucified Jesus, his body given on
Golgotha and his blood shed there, not with any heavenly body of Christ.”2 Since prae-
sentia means being in advance, the presence of Jesus in the Lord’s Supper at present is
the presence in advance of the coming Jesus: “In the temporal sense the crucified Jesus is
present as One who is to come in the Spirit of the new creation and final redemption.”3
Jesus’ saying ‘this is my body, which will be given for you’ (cf. Lk. 22:19) means
that he identified himself with bread and wine and promised that he will be there ‘for
you’ by virtue of his identification with them (the bread and wine). Moltmann indicates
that Jesus’ presence in the Lord’s Supper is not a result of transubstantiation according to
metaphysical philosophy, but his presence takes place according to his promise: “The
presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper is credible simply on the basis of his promise, in
which he identifies himself; not on the basis of metaphysical speculations.”4 The reason
for his presence in the Lord’s Supper is his resurrection and his future. He wants his
Parousia to be anticipated. In other words, his presence now is his future presence in
advance; the Lord’s Supper is the foretoken of the coming Jesus Christ whom we will see
face to face at his Parousia.
2.3.3. The sign of remembered hope and the banquet in the kingdom
If at the Last Supper Jesus anticipated his giving himself up to death for the
world’s salvation, the Christian celebration of the Lord’s Supper should relate to the
death of Jesus Christ. “The Lord’s Supper makes present the crucified and risen Lord…
The Church therefore remembers Jesus’ earthly ministry and makes his death present in
1
Cf. ibid., p. 252-253.
2
Ibid., p. 253.
3
Ibid., p. 254.
4
Ibid., p. 255.
323
the presence of the risen Lord.”1 However, the death of Jesus has to be related to his
resurrection, for his resurrection followed his death. Moltmann adds that “the Lord’s
Supper must not be understood solely in the light of the passion, but in the light of Easter
as well. It mediates communion with the crucified one in the presence of the risen one…
Through his body given to death for all, and his blood shed for all, the exalted Lord gives
those who are already his a share in the future fellowship of the kingdom of God.”2
The celebration of the Lord’s Supper originates in the Last Supper and also in the
messianic history of Jesus who celebrated the feasts with tax collectors and sinners.
“These common meals of Jesus are to be understood as anticipation of the sacred banquet
of the last days.”3 Both the Last Supper and the common meals of Jesus are
commemorated. In the common meals, not only his twelve disciples, but many more
disciples and followers, including sinners and tax collectors, sat with Jesus. In this sense,
from celebrating the Lord’s Supper, it also follows “that the fellowship at the table of
men and women who follow Jesus and enter into his messianic mission must be open for
the meal which accepts and justifies ‘tax collectors and sinners’, and must be seen in the
perspective of the universal banquet of the nations in the coming kingdom.”4
In fact, for Moltmann, the whole history of Jesus Christ - his death and
resurrection - is commemorated and his coming anticipated in the Lord’s Supper, in
which Christians anticipate with joy and hope the banquet in the kingdom. At the Lord’s
Supper Moltmann accentuates the anticipation of the coming Jesus in the coming
kingdom.
At the banquet in the kingdom many will be present (cf. Matt. 8:11; Lk. 13:29;
“blessed are they who will be present at this banquet” (cf. Lk. 14:14). According to
Moltmann, this banquet will be a physical one with real people.5 Furthermore, as Jesus
ate with tax collectors and sinners, the unrighteous too will be seated at the banquet and
1
Ibid., p. 250.
2
Ibid., p. 250-251.
3
Ibid., p. 247.
4
Ibid., p. 249.
5
Apparently, according to Moltmann, because real people will be seated at the banquet in the kingdom,
they will eat physically. I would say that this interpretation is in line with Moltmann’s theology, for he says
that at the resurrection the physical aspects of human beings will be present.
324
will be made righteous, for “this man (Jesus) receives sinners and eats with them” (Lk.
15:2).1 It will be a real banquet participated in by real people of all nations.
People who come to the Lord’s Supper actually participate in the fellowship
through eating and drinking. According to Moltmann, at the beginning it was not only
about ‘particular bread and wine mixed with water’, but was real meal, although people
did not come just to satisfy their hunger. It was the common meal (cf. I Cor. 11: 23f.) as
St. Paul says: ‘when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry,
he should eat at home, so that your meetings may not result in judgment’ (I Cor. 11:33-
34).2
Although in daily life, eating and drinking together are signs of fellowship, it is
important to keep in mind that at the Lord’s Supper the fellowship of Christians does not
result merely from sharing meals together. It is the remembrance of the feast of Jesus -
his history - that binds Christians together in fellowship. The fellowship arising from the
Lord’s Supper also points beyond the meal. It includes discussion, which precedes and
follows it. Participants discuss the needs of the community and the world. “It is the
Lord’s Supper above all that ought to show in its eschatological openness the openness to
the world of Christian mission. And it ought moreover to have room for comforting and
encouraging, and for planning actions and offerings.”3
Although the Last Supper that Jesus shared with his disciples is related to the
meals with tax collectors and sinners, i.e., he was a companion of sinners, it also has
another major significance, i.e. the mission of Jesus. Jesus’ saying “Amen, I say to you, I
shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the
kingdom of God” (Mk. 14:25) means that he is looking forwards to the day of his
accomplished kingdom, when his people will have direct communion with Him face to
face.4 It also means that his mission has to be continued by his disciples until his return.
In other words, the Last Super, with Jesus’ words, points to the messianic mission of
Jesus, which will be carried on by his disciples who enjoy his friendship and who will go
1
2
Cf. ibid., p. 246-247.
3
ibid., p. 247.
4
325
out to seek those who are lost.1 Participating at the table of the Lord, people of God
remember the history of the Lord and relate to the Last Supper and the meals he shared
with tax-collectors, publicans and sinners. In the presence of the Lord and the Holy
Spirit, the community gives thanks to God the Father for all he has done in creation and
in the history of redemption. Because the Lord’s Supper has an eschatological openness,
by participating in it the community is also open to the world through its mission.
In summary, the universal banquet is anticipated in the Lord’s Supper; however, it
also has a major effect on the daily lives of Christians who continue Jesus’ mission of
proclaiming His kingdom through their life example and their fellowship with all people.
2.4. Worship
Does worship mean only a private relationship between believers and God or also
among them? In the traditionally established Churches, the private relationship between
God and believer is sometimes overemphasized, and this practice hinders the socio-
ecclesiastical aspect of the Church gathering. In evangelical and charismatic
communities, worship means both relationships: vertical and horizontal; i.e. man’s
relationship to God and the relationship among men. The question is the degree to which
should these two aspects be emphasized at worship. Moltmann wants to stress that
worship should be a feast that can be accomplished by allowing participants to be more
spontaneous.
2.4.1. Worship as a messianic feast

The term ‘worship’ seems to indicate only due worship that believers ought
render to God; in this sense, it connotes a vertical and private relationship between God
and the individual worshiper. However, according to Moltmann, worship should also be a
feast for the community.
In Europe, worship cannot be considered a community feast because secular
society has driven all religious feasts out of public life. This fact is due to two factors:
middle-class industrialization and the Calvinist and Puritan Reformation.
The modern world of industrialization is valued in terms of goals, means, and
success. Therefore, “the more people came to see the meaning of their lives in terms of
1
326
calculable ends, the less meaning they could see in the purposelessness of games and the
uselessness of fests.”1
According to the Calvinism, sola scriptura is the sole source in liturgy; therefore,
hymns and instrumental music are not necessary in liturgy. Consequently, the festive
characteristic is not encouraged in worship. Puritanism, from the 17th century on, being
haunted by the consciousness of sinfulness and God’s wrath, has encouraged a life of
hard work and discipline, and therefore, Puritans do not live to enjoy pleasure. In this
sense, they downplay the festive.2
Under the influences of these two factors, some Churches “reduced the liturgies
of Christian worship to doctrinal and moral instruction, excluding doxological and
hymnological expressions as superfluous and merely time-consuming.”3
Today, there is a rebirth of the festive in worship with Christians being
encouraged to participate in freedom and joy. Particularly, in the African independent
Churches, participants experience worship as a feast when they can pray, dance and sing
spontaneously; they do not have to hide their feelings but can express what is considered
to be ‘private and personal sensibility’ in the Western world.4
We need to understand that worship is a messianic feast in which the assembled
community proclaims the gospel and “anticipates the fellowship of God’s kingdom… It
itself is the feast of freedom in the presence of the triune God and is therefore celebrated
and experienced in feasts.”5 In the messianic feast, the memory of the death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ enables Christians to anticipate in hope the coming kingdom.
Christians do not, in fact, have to wait until the end of time but can taste it now.6 In the
messianic feast, Christians renew the remembrance of Christ who liberated the world and
brought love to it; they anticipate and awaken hope for the kingdom. Therefore, in this
spirit, they celebrate that feast with joy, in harmony with all creation.
Furthermore, because Christians experience freedom and joy, they also bring
pain, omission and failure to the feast, which is still celebrated in an imperfect world, a
1
2
Cf. J. T. MACNEIL, History and Character of Calvinism, New York: Oxford University Press, 1954; J.
SPURR, English Puritanism 1603-1689, Basingstoke: MacMillan, 1998.
3
J. MOLTMANN, The Open Church, p. 65, cf. “The Liberating Feast”, p. 74.
4
5
6
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Open Church, p. 73.
327
foreign land. Only in the coming kingdom, will the feast be celebrated without suffering.
“The liberating feast in the foreign land is the fragmentary anticipation of God’s free and
festal world.”1 Christians do not forget that they continue to confront the reality of their
lives. They do not use the feast to escape the miserable conditions of life. Because they
already anticipate in hope the messianic banquet, they become conscious of the pain and
burden of life, but also know that “the sufferings of this present time are as nothing
compared with the glory to be revealed for us” (Rom. 8:18).2
Because worship is a messianic feast, it is not only a feast of joy accompanied
with pain and suffering, but also anticipates the feast of the coming Jesus Christ. In this
sense, the assembled community celebrates the feast with anticipation, and it becomes
aware that it is a messianic community in the sense that it has a mission towards the
world.3
2.4.2. The feast in history

After settling in the promised land, Israel celebrated cyclical festivals: every year,
at the beginning of the barley harvest the Israelites recalled the exodus from Egypt; at the
vintage festival in autumn, they recall the journey in the desert. Thus, they celebrate their
historical relationship with God. Furthermore, they not only recall history, but also have a
purpose in celebrating the feast: they recall the faithfulness of God in the past in order to
awaken trust in the future faithfulness of God.4
Israel celebrates the Sabbath in recalling the history of creation; it is the festival
day after the six days of the work of creation. “The messianic era is often called the ‘era
of the endless Sabbath, so the weekly Sabbath is understood as an anticipation and
foretaste of this time.”5 It anticipates the messianic era in the sense that it is a day of
resting in peace and harmony, which reconstitutes relationships among men and between
man and nature.6
Like the Israelites, Christians, celebrating the Sabbath, also recall God’s
relationship to them. They rejoice for what God has done to them and give thanks and
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 262, cf. p. 273-274.
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Open Church, p. 75.
3
4
Cf. ibid., p. 267-269.
5
Ibid., p. 269.
6
Cf. Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Open Church, p. 73; The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 269-270.
328
praise to Him. Furthermore, in modern, industrialized times, Christian feasts have

assumed some of the characteristics of the social festival.
Both religious and social festivals are vital to Christians. With regard to social
feasts, subjected to the stress of the modern world of work, which forces many to
overwork, people are given the opportunity to celebrate festivals in order to reduce that
stress. “Since everyday life is dominated by tension, responsibility and pressure for
achievement, there is a need for periodic release and relaxation.”1
Christian worship on Sunday, celebrated as a feast, also provides Christians
release - spiritual relaxation. Moltmann notes that today “many people expect Sunday
worship to do the same (release and relax) to them.”2 According to Moltmann, this
expectation is positive, because Christian life needs freedom. Release from distress
means a journey towards real liberation and future freedom. Indeed, Christians go to
Church not only to praise God, but also to receive God’s blessing upon their present
lives, which are under stress and burdened. “One goes to Church in order to get oneself
together, to come to oneself again, and to reconcile oneself with the unreconciled
everyday.”3
The Church needs to allow people to use their imagination, seeking alternatives
and new possibilities in the worship feast: “By providing anticipation and room for
alternatives and experiment, feasts and acts of worship bring a hitherto unknown freedom
in to unfree life.”4 In the feast, spontaneous and creative contributions of participants are
welcomed and appreciated. Participants are the subjects of the feasts; however, this is
possible only in the reformed Church, which is a Church of the people. Thus, strangers
are also welcomed to these Christian feasts.5 However, Moltmann warns that the Church,
1
J. MOLTMANN, “The Liberating Feast”, p. 77. We should note that while working people require festivals
in order to relieve their tension and lighten their burden, on the contrary, owners of enterprises in principle
do not favor festivals because they want workers to work as much as possible. However they also want
workers to produce the maximum; therefore, they are obliged to allow workers to celebrate festivals. In
these intervals, workers refresh themselves and work better afterwards. In this context, Moltmann says
above that industrially productive modern society suppresses festivals and that this too influences Christian
feasts. Furthermore, from either perspective, Christians and workers expect the same effect from both
social and religious feasts, i.e. relaxation.
2
J. MOLTMANN, “The Liberating Feast”, p. 77.
3
J. MOLTMANN, The Open Church, p. 70; cf. The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 266-267.
4
J. MOLTMANN, “The Liberating Feast”, p. 77.
5
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 273, 275. .
329
in responding to these Christian needs, has to determine whether the Christian feast
expresses messianic freedom.1
2.4.3. The feast of Jesus Christ

‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. That is why the Son of
man is lord even of the Sabbath’ (Mk. 2:27-28). The Jews had turned the law that had the
purpose of guiding the people of God in their journey towards salvation, into a mere cult
for the sake of the law; they went to worship not for salvation but because of the
obligation of the law. Jesus wants to divert this tendency; “The Sabbath is made for
man’s sake, not for work’s sake, Jesus does not orientate it towards the working days.”2
From now on, “the Christian cult consists of Christ’s person and history, and the
history of the Church’s relationship to Christ in the Spirit.”3 Because the Christian feast is
the feast of Jesus Christ, it is not limited only to the Sabbath, but must extend to everyday
life: “It is the feast of the new life. Here no special festal times and periods of leisure are
required. Wherever it comes into being there is the Sabbath, God’s sabbatical year, the
messianic era. To preach the gospel of the kingdom to the poor, to heal the sick, to
receive the despised, free prisoners, and eat and drink with the hungry is the feast of
Christ in the history of God’s dealing with the world.”4
Christian life is the life of feast; it expresses joy and love in everyday existence.
Christians come to celebrate every seventh day in order to fill up the other six days with
the spirit of festival. Sunday worship is oriented towards everyday life.
The center of the Sabbath celebration is the feast of Christ’s resurrection. In this
feast of the Sabbath, the risen Lord is present; therefore, it is the feast of joy and freedom.
For Christians, Jesus’ resurrection is the source of their joy, which they want to celebrate
every week. The joy and freedom present in the Sabbath feast is necessarily translated
into the Eucharist, i.e. the feast of thanksgiving and praise.5
1
Cf. ibid., p. 267.
2
Ibid., p. 270.
3
Ibid., p. 271.
4
Ibidem.
5
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Open Church, p. 72-73; The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 274.
330
CHAPTER II. THE EXODUS CHURCH

The term ‘exodus’ recalls the historical exodus of Israel out of Egypt. The people
of Israel was brought out of Egypt, out of its slavery, and then wandered in the desert for
forty years, and finally entered into the Promised Land. It was of geographical
significance, but also had a soteriological implication, i.e. their entering into the covenant
with God who liberated them, saved them, accompanied them throughout its history and
entrusted it a mission.
In the light of the soteriological implication of the historical exodus of Israel, the
term ‘the exodus Church’ employed by Moltmann does not mean getting out of one land
and entering into another, but proceeding from the past into the future: “It is understood
historically, not geographically. It is the long march through the institutions of society,
out of oppressions and into new liberated forms of life in the expectation of that life
which swallowed up death (cf. I Cor. 15:55f.).”1
Furthermore, Israel’s ‘exodus’ means its exit or going out, but it does not mean
going out without entering somewhere. Israel exited in order to enter into the Promised
Land. In this sense, when talking about the exodus Church, Moltmann means that the
Church is on a pilgrimage towards the promised kingdom. Along its pilgrimage, the
Church enters into the world and it finally reaches the future kingdom. In this sense, it
maybe easier to understand the term ‘exodus Church’ if we relate it to the idea of the
‘Church’s entering’. Of course, the Church cannot ‘get outside itself’ to enter into the
world but is at the same time within itself and in the world. It enters the world in order to
accomplish its mission. The term ‘exodus Church’ is used here for the analytical purpose
of describing one dimension of the Church’s mission, i.e. its mission towards the world.
In fact, it is hard to distinguish the two dimensions of the Church’s mission: within the
Church for Christians and outside the Church for the world, for both Christians and non-
Christians live in the same world.2 Often the Church’s mission has either explicit or
implicit effects on the world. The Church is an exodus Church in the sense that it is
fulfilling its mission of liberation. It is being liberated and is liberating the world.
1
2
331
1. POLITICAL THEOLOGY AND LIBERATION THEOLOGY

Political theology, liberation theology and the theology of hope emerged in the
same period, i.e. between 1964 and 19761, as a reaction to the social-political situation in
Europe and in Latin America. All three theologies tried to propose a new hermeneutics
and praxis for theology. Gustavo Gutiérrez said that the question regarding the
theological meaning of liberation is a question about the meaning of Christianity and
about the mission of the Church.2 In fact, we will see that both political theology and the
theology of hope involve the Church’s mission.3
1.1. Political religion

Roman Emperors believed that gods would grant blessings and prosperity to their
empire and citizens if they rendered worship to those gods. From such beliefs, religion
became bound to the state.4 With Constantine’s pact, Christianity, instead of being
persecuted for political and religious reasons, gained its freedom. It quickly gained the
emperors’ trust and became the state religion, sustaining the state. The kingdom of the
Roman Empire was regarded as the promised kingdom of peace. In this sense, “the Pax
Christi and Pax Romana were to be bound by the providentia Dei.”5
Having become a state religion, Christianity tried to Christianize all other state
religions and leveled the charge of atheism at Jews, pagans and heretics. Christianity also
enjoyed the benefits of Christian religious education being provided by the state. Thus,
Christianity became a political religion that was both political and religious.6
For eighteen centuries, there was no separation between Church and State. The
dictums ‘one emperor, one law, one empire, one religion’ or ‘Cuius regio -eius religio’
symbolized practice in Europe. Only when multi-religious societies became the reality,
did the state have to become neutral and accept all religions; one religion could not be the
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Teología política y Teología de la liberación” in Carthaginensia 8, 1998, p. 490-501,
at 490.
2
Cf. G. GUTIÉRREZ, A Theology of Liberation, Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1988, p. XIV, a
revised version of the original English-language translation, Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1973,
trans. from the Spanish Teología de la liberación, Lima: CEP, 1971.
3
In finding the new hermeneutics and praxis of the Church, I will study the political theology, liberation
theology and theology of hope in the context of the Church’s mission. Because there are many divergences
and even more convergences among these three theologies, I think that it is appropriate to study them in
parallel.
4
J. MOLTMANN, The Crucified God, p. 336; cf. The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, p. 192.
5
J. MOLTMANN, The Crucified God, p. 339; cf. Theology of Hope, p. 306.
6
332
state religion. This saw the beginning of the separation of religion and state. The result
being “if the state itself becomes religiously neutral, then religions must become
apolitical.”1
However, in reality, relatively speaking, despite the neutrality of the state, in the
West, until today, Christianity appears as a political religion in various forms. In the
nineteenth century, there were “patriotic religions which cultivated their own symbols,
sacrifices and altars. National acts of remembrance and festival, school books and
presidential speeches were cultivated by these national religions.”2 According to
Moltmann, political religion exists in all political systems: imperialism, socialism,
capitalism and fascism. “As bearers of the religions of society, the Christian Churches are
constantly subject to one or other form of religion. When they regard themselves as being
either unpolitical or apolitical, this is only because of the blindness which their position
inflicts on them.”3 In other words, the Church cannot avoid being political. Moltmann
quotes Jean-Jacques Rousseau who says that Christianity should be the true religion of
the gospel, but this is politically impossible.4 Concurrently, “modern society, too, needs
and produces political religions - if not with the help of the established Churches, then
without or against them.”5
However, if the Church chooses to maintain close ties with the state, it becomes a
Church of ‘bourgeois religion’ and loses its identity as a Church that is supposed to
follow the path of the crucified Jesus. J. B. Metz and J. Moltmann think that the political
theology of the cross will offer a better direction, which is critical of society and does not
disregard the insignificant people, but is open to all. In other words, these authors
advocate a political Church which, however, should not be dependent on political
systems. A study of political theology will explain this further.
1
J. MOLTMANN, N. WOLTERSTORFF, E. T. CHARRY, A Passion for God’s Reign, p. 46; cf. J. MOLTMANN,
Theology of Hope, p. 305, 310-311. The separation of religion and state has led to the misunderstanding
that religion is no longer a public but a private matter, as the existential theology of Bultmann and the
transcendental theology of Barth show; cf. this thesis, p. 148.
2
3
Ibidem.
4
Cf. ibid., p. 338; J. J. ROUSSEAU, Du contrat social, book 4, Paris: Union générale d’édition, 1973, ch. 8.
To what extent and in which form should the Church be related to the state? I am surprised that on the
subject of political religion, Moltmann does not comment methodically on the Church’s dependence on the
state in Germany and Belgium, which extends to these countries paying their clergy. From the perspective
of political religion, is it a reciprocal accord that the Church and state protect and support one another?
5
333
1.2. Political theology

At first glance, many Christians do not like the idea of the Church’s getting
involved in politics or of politicizing the Church, i.e. turning the Church into a political
organization, because they argue that the Church should focus on caring for the spiritual
needs of Christians. They may be right to a certain degree. However, political theology
should be considered a legitimate and necessary theology in the Church. We will see that
by ‘political theology’, Moltmann does not mean that the Church should become a
political institution or get involved directly in the politics of countries and of the world;
he rather means that the Church should engage in world affairs in the sense that it should
criticize the world. In this sense, ‘political theology’ designates a theology that treats the
relationship between the Church and society in the sense that the Church has
responsibilities in and for the world, but the world does not have responsibilities
regarding the Church.
Moltmann adjoins the adjective ‘new’ to the term ‘political theology’ to
designate new aspects added to the original political theology. The term ‘political
theology’ was first introduced by J. B. Metz in 1967 at an international conference in
Toronto, when he, basing himself on a new critical and prophetical hermeneutics of the
Christian message, stated: “every eschatological theology [therefore] has to become a
political theology, that is, a (social) critical theology.”1
1.2.1. The background and nature of political theology

Political theology was born out of political circumstances, i.e. World War II and
the holocaust. Memories of the holocaust particularly awakened the conscience of people;
they were haunted by a sense of guilt because they either consciously kept silent in the
face of this horrible event, or had indirectly contributed to it through their ideological
lifestyles, i.e. keeping their religion a private affair or avoiding involvement in politics.
Moltmann, considering himself a political theologian, says: “The long shadows of this
historical guilt became our locus theologicus. We associated with the name ‘Auschwitz’
not just the moral and political crisis of our people, but a theological crisis of the
1
J. B. METZ, Theology of the World, London: Burns & Oats Limited, 1969, p.115, trans. from the German
Zur Theologie der Welt, Mainz: Mathias-Grünewalt-Verlag, Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1968. Moltmann
also quotes Metz’s statement in his book Experiences in Theology, p.114.
334
Christian faith as well.”1 It was as a form of reaction to these events that theologians
posed the questions: Was the Church responsible for the persecution of the Jews? What
and how should the Church be engaged in the world? Why did people not prevent
Auschwitz? According to J. B. Metz and J. Moltmann, there are two theological grounds
behind the behaviour of the Church and Christians: theology’s consideration of religion
as a private matter, and misinterpretation of the theology of the two separated worlds.2
Firstly, ‘Religion is a private affair’ had been a popular dictum as to religious
practice. According to the existential theology of R. Bultmann as well as the
transcendental theology of K. Barth, ‘our relationship with God is an ‘I-Thou’
relationship’.3 From these traditions, a tendency of avoiding involvement in social affairs
resulted; i.e., religion has nothing to do with politics. Concretely, in Germany the Church
failed to prevent the crimes against humanity which led to ‘Auschwitz’. In reaction to the
private religious belief and practice tendency was born a new political theology4,
represented by J. B. Metz on the Catholic side, and by Leonhard Ragaz, Karl Barth, Ernst
Käsemann and Helmut Gollwitzer on the Protestant side.5
Secondly, a theological argumentation advocating the separation of Church and
state caused the Church to withdraw from politics. “Through this separation, religion and
conscience were limited to the Church and other areas of life were relinquished to
unscrupulous power politics.”6
1
2
3
Cf. this thesis in the section Hope and Revelation, p. 147-149.
4
Moltmann calls it ‘new’ political theology in order convey the new way of the Church’s involvement in
world affairs as distinguished from its old way, which coincided with politics. Furthermore, in 1922, the
term ‘political theology’ was already in use by Carl Schmitt, who argued for state authority over the
Church. Cf. C. SCHMITT, Politische Theologie. Vier Kapitel zur Lehre von der Souveränität. Munich &
Berlin: Duncker, 1922.
5
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, Experiences in Theology, p. 114-115; “Covenant or Leviathan? Political Theology for
Modern Times” in Scottish Journal of Theology 47, 1994, p. 19-41, at 39; La giustizia crea futuro, p. 40-
41; “Die Befreiung der Unterdrückung” in Evang. Theol. 38, 1978, p. 527-537. J. B. METZ, Faith in
History and Society, New York: Seabury Press, 1980. L. RAGAZ, Katholische Socialisten, Mannheim:
Verlag der religiösen Socialisten, 1930; A. KÄSEMANN, Der Ruf der Freiheit, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1972; A. KÄSEMENN, Kirchlich Konflikte, Göttingen: Vandenboeck und Ruprecht, 1982. K. BARTH, The
German Church Conflict, London: Lutterworth, 1965; K. BARTH, The Theology of the reformed
Confession, Luisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002; H. GOLLWITZER and C. KELLER, Umkehr und
Revolution, München: Kaiser, 1988; H. GOLLWITZER, Du bist gefragt: Reflexionen zur Gotteslehre,
München: Kaiser, 1988.
6
J. MOLTMANN, “Covenant or Leviathan? Political Theology for Modern Times”, p. 39; cf., God for a
Secular Society, p. 49; cf. La giustizia crea futuro, p. 41-42.
335
These two elements, religion as a private affair and the separation of Church and
state, have had a negative effect on the public life of society and politics, with the
consequence that humanity is damaged by war and immorality. According to Moltmann,
the Church and politics must both be inspired to promote the good of humanity.
Therefore, Christians and the Church have to bring morality, conscience and
responsibility back in politics. Humanity has to be saved.1
According to Moltmann, the term ‘political’ has acquired another dimension
today. At the end of the cold war between East and West, politics in the traditional sense
lost ground to economic politics: “The result was a globalization of the economy through
the world-wide marketing of everything and, along with that, a ‘totalization’ of the
economy. This means that political decisions become the locally restricted sub-system of
globalizing economic forces.”2 Moltmann means that in the past, politics controlled
economy; today it lost that influence. In this sense, politics today has to take into account
both the local and world economical situation. The globalization of the economy is a
major factor in politics.3 In this sense, political theology is not a theology reserved only
to Europe, but has become a global theology. In fact, with globalization, the rich nations
of the North Atlantic have become richer at the expense of the poor countries of the
South, due to the exploitation of cheap labor, natural resources and the debt burden; the
poor are evermore present in the rich countries, particularly in Western Europe due to the
new European union which allows the poor from the East to emigrate to the West.4
1.2.2. The praxis of political theology

In order to describe the praxis of political theology, we discuss two aspects: (1) a
reflection on the meaning and tasks of political theology and (2) an investigation into the
relationship between the Church and the world.
1.2.2.1 The meaning and tasks of political theology

Political theology does not have as its purpose politicizing the Church, but says
that the Church needs to turn its face to the world and talk about God in our own time
1
Cf. ibid., p. 42-44.
2
3
‘Politics’, in the traditional sense, means ‘governing’; according to ‘political theology’, it means a public
affair.
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, God for a Secular Society, p. 59-60.
336
with our own language. In other words, the Church needs to talk eschatologically about
God and get involved in the world.1 Political theology wants to accomplish a double task
that is negative and positive.
The negative task consists in correcting the tendency of religious privacy. Now it
is necessary to foster de-privatization (Entprivatisierung). J. B. Metz develops “a
politically critical and publicly responsible theology: ‘Deprivatizing is the primary
critical task of political theology with regard to theology.”2 Under the effect of a dialogue
with Marxism3, Christianity was criticized as an “ideological superstructure of a socially
determined praxis and of the rapport of particular powers.”4 Now, political theology
wants to get beyond the private sphere.
The positive task consists of developing public and social implications for
Christian messages. Theology needs to be translated into praxis. According to the new
biblical hermeneutics, the biblical tradition, eschatologically interpreted, promises liberty,
peace, justice and reconciliation, which are not empty horizons of religious expectations,
but have a public dimension.5 Political theology wants the Church to be active in
engaging in world affairs. In fact, if Carl Schmitt has argued, since 1922, using the term
‘political theology’, that the state has authority on earth, not Church over state; on the
contrary, Metz and Moltmann feel that “the Church and Christianity in the world are the
determining subjects of the political theology.”6
The positive task consists of formulating “the eschatological message under the
conditions of our present society.”7 What are the conditions of our present society? Our
present society is a society that considers only public actions valid. It is because of the
influence of the Enlightenment, upheld by E. Kant, that all that men can perceive the
need to act in the public sphere: “A man is enlightened only when he has the freedom to
make public use of his reason in all affairs. Hence the realization of this enlightenment is
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, Experiences in Theology p. 114-115; God for a Secular Society, p. 49-50.
2
J. MOLTMANN, “Covenant or Leviathan? Political Theology for Modern Times”, p. 39; cf. J. B. Metz, The
Theology of the World, p.107.
3
J. B. Metz and K. Rahner participated in a series of dialogue conferences between Christians and
Marxists: in Salzburg (1965), in Herrenchiemsee (1966) and in Marienbad, Czechoslovakia (1967).
4
R. GIBELLINI, Panorama de la théologie au XXe Siècle, p.346.
5
Cf. ibidem.
6
7
J. B. METZ, The Theology of the World, p. 107.
337
never a merely theoretical problem, but essentially a political one, a problem of social
conduct.”1 On the contrary, pure reason, i.e. reason not rendered public, has no value. A
reason that is transformed into action is a ‘practical political reason’. In this sense, there
is relationship between fides and ratio; the responsibility of faith renders ratio ‘public’ -
‘political’. Thus, the conditions of our present society show a relationship between
practical political reason and faith in action.
The eschatological message is that Christians have the duty of criticizing and
acting publicly in world affairs in order to help render possible the salvation of the world.
This message is underpinned biblically. Indeed, as Scripture shows, Jesus was a public
figure; his death was a public affair, for he was judged and condemned by public powers
in the light of the laws of Israel and the Roman Empire. The salvation brought about by
Jesus therefore is for the entire world, and the message of salvation has to be announced
publicly. This entire subject can be summarized in what Metz says: “in the service of this
message, Christian religion has been charged with a public responsibility to criticize and
to liberate.”2 Christians have to assume responsibilities towards society. This does not
mean that we reject the conditions of society today out of hand, but we are critical of
them. Metz says that it is the promise of peace and justice that stimulate and appeal us to
verify these promises and realize them in present-day society. The eschatological
message can be formulated in another way: “Every eschatological theology, therefore,
must become a political theology.”3
1.2.2.2. The relationship between the Church and the world4

The Church is called to involvement in the life of a world which is run by political
systems. In this context, the Church becomes a political Church. It should be pointed out
that this does not mean that the Church needs to become a political system, but rather that
the Church has to engage in the political affairs of society. In other words, the Church has
to sow Christian values into the political systems: “The new political theology
presupposes the public witness of faith and the freedom for political discipleship of
1
Ibid. p. 112; cf. E. KANT, Pour la paix perpétuelle, Lyon: Universitaires de Lyon, 1985.
2
3
Ibid., p. 115.
4
By ‘world’ Metz means a ‘societal reality, viewed in its historical becoming’, while Moltmann designates
two realities composed of the same one creation: the cosmos and societal reality, consisting of all living
creatures.
338
Christ which is not only private and not only inside the Church. It does not want to
‘repoliticize’ the Church as its critics insinuate, but rather wants to christianize the
political existence of the Churches and of Christians… Politics is the wider context of all
Christian theology.”1 If the world is considered as a societal reality and the Church is in
the world, then the Church “is not a reality beside or over this societal reality; rather, it is
an institution within it, criticizing it, having a critical liberating task in regard to it.”2
Like the theology of hope, political theology also springs from eschatological
promises. These eschatological promises found Christian hope and faith, which
necessarily “takes on a critical task with regard to the society.”3 A question needs to be
raised here: Can this task be left to be accomplished by individual believers or should
institutions do it? Certainly, according to the principles of political theology, each
believer is encouraged to criticize society. The question here is how the Church should
get involved in this task of criticism. Can the Church be at the same time the subject and
the object of critical liberty? Metz says: “the social-critical task of the Church becomes
the task of criticizing religion and Church as well. The two go together like the two faces
of a coin.”4 In fact, in criticizing society, the Church also benefits itself through mirroring
itself.
1.2.2.2.1. The Church’s self-critiques

If hope belongs not only to the Church, but also to the entire world and the
Church has the mission of announcing this hope to all nations, the Church, as an
institution, has to live as a worthy announcer of hope. It has to live under eschatological
conditions: “As institution, the Church truly lives on the proclamation of her own
proviso. And she must realize this eschatological stipulation in that she establishes herself
as the institution of critical liberty, in the face of society and its absolute and self-
sufficient claims.”5 The Church, as an institution, is bound to social-economic and
1
J. MOLTMANN, “Covenant or Leviathan? Political Theology for Modern Times”, p. 40.
2
3
Ibidem.
4
Ibid., p. 120.
5
Ibid., p. 116.
339
cultural factors.1 Furthermore, Moltmann says that the Church can even unconsciously
cause injustice in the world; therefore, it needs to be constantly self-critical. In fact, in
many countries, because the Church is bound to a social system, it indirectly spreads
injustice in the world. “Therefore, social criticism which focuses on the victims of that
oppression will always criticize the religion of that society. Such criticism will focus on
the Church whenever it represents this civil religion.”2
1.2.2.2.2. Church critiques of society

The Church has been criticized as often being too late in intervening in crises in
the world. Even worse, in history, the Church has condemned some relatively positive
movements, such as revolutions, the enlightenment, etc. But the Church now needs to
think and act in new ways.3 Here are some socio-political critical tasks the Church can
perform:
First of all, the Church has to criticize any practice of society that “would see
individuality only as the function of society’s progress technically directed.”4 Humankind
has its own value, which cannot be manipulated for the sake of technical progress.
Secondly, the Church has to reaffirm its critical and liberating function in the face
of political systems. The Church has to inform political systems that humanity’s history
and the history of individuals have their own proviso before God; individuals cannot
become objects of a particular political system.
Thirdly, the Church accomplishes its duty of criticizing by mobilizing Christian
love. Love does not limit itself to the spheres of the I-Thou relationship or between
neighbors within a neighborhood, but has a social dimension. When love is bound to the
relationship between the lover and the loved, it is limited and loses its social dimension.
On the contrary, when it extends to the category of ‘friend-enemy’, it brings hope to all.
In this sense the Church has to bring love wherever there is persecution, oppression and
injustice caused by the friend and enemy relationships. Metz asserts that love sometimes
demands ‘actions of a revolutionary character’: “If the status quo of a society contains as
1
Another reason for the Church’s self-critiques is that the Church consists of leaders and the faithful, who
are sinners. This reality also affects the life of the Church. I have discussed this subject in the section “the
holiness of the Church”, p. 94-104.
2
J. MOLTMANN, “Liberation in the Light of Hope”, p. 421-422.
3
Cf. J. B. METZ, The Theology of the World, p. 117.
4
Ibid., p. 118.
340
much injustice as would probably be caused by a revolutionary upheaval, a revolution in

favor of freedom and justice for the sake of ‘the least of our brothers’ would be
permissible even in the name of love.”1 Moltmann indicates his agreement with Metz,
refers to Luther who teaches that Christians have a revolutionary duty to combat a
political tyrant. K. Barth has the same opinion when he “took up for consideration Article
XIV of the Scottish Confession, according to which obedience to the commandment
‘Thou shalt not kill’ also requires that Christians should ‘repress tyranny’. This task is
part of the duty of love one’s neighbor.”2
In accomplishing political tasks, the Church needs to take into account the
following aspects: 1) Non-theological data: The Church cannot rely on theological data
alone, but has to benefit from social and scientific data when it issues its critical
pronouncements. There is a danger, however, whenever the Church oversteps the
boundaries of its competence. 2) Public opinion within the Church: Because Church
leaders often reflect certain mentalities, particularly middle class, public critiques
reflecting all classes of society should be given due consideration. The public within the
Church has its own valuable voice for criticizing both Church and society. However, it is
not necessarily true that public opinion is always right and just. Even if a public
consensus involves a vast majority of a population, it can be wrong. 3) No one political
system is absolute: “In the pluralistic society it cannot be the socio-critical of the Church
to proclaim one positive societal order as an absolute norm.”3 The task of the Church is
not establishing a social system or doctrine, but criticizing society in the light of Christian
values. 4) Cooperation with non-Christians: The Church, as a socio-critical institution,
needs to work with other non-Christian institutions because the Church exists in a
religious and social pluralism.4
1
Ibid., p. 120.
2
J. MOLTMANN, “Racism and the Right to Resist” in Study Encounter 8, 1972, p. 1-10, at 6. M. Luther also
taught that Christians have the duty of combating the anti-Christ and the Papacy, which commits the sin of
abuse of spiritual power. Cf. K. BARTH, “Der Christ in der Gesellschaft” in J. MOLTMANN (ed.), Angfänge
der dialektischen Teologie, Teil 1, München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1966, p. 3-36; L’Êpitre aux Romains,
Genève : Labor et Fides, 1972; Church and State, Greenville, SC: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 1991;
Community, State, and Church, Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1968; D. CORNU, Karl Barth und die
Politik, Wuppertal : Aussaat, 1969; F. JEHLE, Karl Barth: une Étique politique, Lausanne: Éditions d’En-
Bas, 2002.
3
J. B. METZ, The Theology of the World, p. 122-123.
4
Cf. ibid., p. 120-123.
341
Some people argue that involvement in political resistance belongs only to the
competence of individual Christians and not to the Church, for the Church cannot also
represent the opposing political decision of another Christian who may disagree with the
Church’s political views: “This separation between the institutional Church and the
individual Christian finds no support in the New Testament and is contrary to the
‘Theology of the Word of God’.”1 Moltmann disagrees with this opinion, saying that
although there is diverse political opinions among Christians, there is the possibility of
reaching consensus and, thus, the Church can present certain political decisions in the
name of Christians: “Between the dreaded tutelage by the Church over its members’
political conscience and the alleged individual nature of political decisions, there lies a
whole series of possibilities for achieving a consensus and joint action; only those
Churches which separate Church and politics in the old established Church way are
unaware of these possibilities.”2 A method of finding consensus is by using intermediate
social groups and synods, particularly on the parish level. Moltmann concludes that there
should not separation between the Church and Christians, for the Church means a
community of people. “The Church is not only an institution for the preaching of the
Word and the administration of the Sacraments, it is also the concrete community of the
faithful, and as the concrete community of the faithful the Church is also the practical
community of love.”3
1.2.3. The Church in the process of political life

Separation between Church and state does not mean that the Church does not
become involved in politics. There is always involvement of the Church in politics. One
can say that there is no separation between Church and state. The question is the extent to
which the Church should get involved in politics.
1.2.3.1. Christians in political life

Because the Church is the Church of Christ and it has to subject itself to the sole
Gospel of Christ, no state or social system has the right to claim dominance over the
Church. While defending itself against the imposition of lordship from the part of the
1
J. MOLTMANN, “Racism and the Right to Resist”, p. 9.
2
Ibidem.
3
Ibid., p. 10.
342
state or social system, the Church also provides theological concepts regarding political
and social relationships in the world.1 In other words, the Church has a political
dimension.
Moltmann complains that the Church has kept a conservative approach in dealing
with the world, which is an entity in constant revolution and becoming; that the Church is
often behind the times: “Since the time of the political and social revolutions in Europe,
the Protestant and Catholic Churches have consistently made a conservative choice,
presenting themselves in the social process as the power of order against enlightenment,
emancipation and revolution.”2 This tendency however represents the policy of Church
leaders, i.e. the official Church. Thanks to European political theology, laymen have
become aware of this phenomenon. Thus, the liberty to participate in politics is restored.
Political liberty becomes part of the nature of Christian life, for they should not shun the
world but live within the world, and therefore have to get involved in the world.
Participating in world politics by getting involved in the world is the mission of every
Christian.
Since politics rules public life and because Christians and non-Christians, as well
as the fate of the earth, are determined by the decisions of politicians, the Church
encourages its members to become involved in public affairs: “As a member of a
community of this kind man is a political being. His participation in the public processes
of decision, which affect the whole community, are an indispensable part of his life and
the dignity of his person.”3 All people in a civil community must have equal right and
responsibility to participate in the decision-making process: “Man’s rule over other men
is only possible on the foundation of equal rights. This is the only basis on which it is
possible to talk about identity between rulers and ruled. When men are governed by
people like themselves, this must inevitably lead to democratic forms of government.”4
The Church will try to “liberate men from political alienation and loss of rights.”5
It criticizes the state in order to help bring about the right relationship between the state
and its citizens. The state can fall into idolatry when its representatives do not serve its
1
2
Ibid., p. 16.
3
Ibid., p. 176.
4
Cf. ibid., p. 176-177.
5
343
citizens and deprives them of their political rights. With disconnection between
politicians and citizens, people lapse into passivity with regard to their political rights and
duties and become politically alienated. This situation causes a further misuse of power
on the part of government as well as a further submission on the part of citizens.1
1.3.3.2. Preference for one political system

Moltmann indicates that liberation theology in Europe opposes capitalism, which
“is doomed to failure on the basis of its ever greater contradiction against human rights,
the life of the earth, and its own future.”2 At other times, he expresses his preference for
democracy: “Democracy offers the opportunity to realize the best possible association
between the fact of political rule and the idea of general co-operation, the greatest
possible justice and social security for all.”3 Democratic government allows all members
to participate in the decision-making process. Moltmann extols for democracy because it
allows relationships between the state and citizens to flourish. The relationship between
the state and citizens will be better if the political rights of men are respected and their
apathy towards the state diminishes. In fact, the possibility of men’s participation in
politics “lies in the demolition of master-slave relationships, in the limitation and control
of the political exercise of power, and in activating the people from their apathy as
subjects towards responsible participation in the processes of political decision.”4
1
Cf. ibidem.
2
J. MOLTMANN, “The Theology of our Liberation”, p. 4.
3
4
J. MOLTMANN, The Crucified God, p. 342. L. Boff, in the process of analysing society, not only begins
with the cause of poverty, but also with the results of socio-political systems in order to adopt a better one
that promotes social equality and diminishes poverty. For him, socialism has carried out a ‘revolution of
hunger’ that capitalism has not been able to do. He notes that in the slums of socialist countries there are
not thousands of beggars and abandoned elderly living among a few rich people; in socialist countries, the
health care system is better than in capitalist countries and infant death rates are lower; social plans in
socialist countries are more balanced and sound. Boff concludes that the lives of people in China are better
than those in Brazil, and that socialism collapsed not because of poverty but because of its suppression of
liberty. He asserts that capitalism will never do justice and it is a chastisement. “Capitalism can function
only in those countries already industrialized” (L. BOFF, La terre en devenir, Paris: Édition Albin Michel,
1994, p. 143; trans. from the Portuguese Ecologia, Mundializaçao Espiritualidade A Emergência de um
novo Paradigma, 1993). So, what political system would Boff choose? He does not choose socialism as a
goal or a permanent system, but only as means of liberating the poor. He refutes capitalism definitively:
“Liberation theology only considers socialism as a means of improving the cause of the oppressed, as an
historical alternative to capitalism, which causes such suffering to our people. However, socialism has
never been considered as a model to imitate”(L. BOFF, La terre en devenir, p. 144, trans. mine). In my
view, the question is how long socialism will be opted for as an alternative to capitalism? Is it going to be a
permanent option because there will never be a society without the poor? In other words, as long as the
poor are still there, socialism will be chosen as the best political system to serve the cause of the poor. Boff
344
The question at issue is which kind of political system can best serve society. We
know some systems well: monarchy, democracy, socialism, communism and
dictatorship. Does any one political system best serve in culturally and demographically
diverse countries? It is possible that democracy serves best in Europe but not in China, or
communism serves best in China but not in America. Here is what Moltmann says:
“Because political constitutions and forms of government are themselves going through a
process of alteration, Christianity must also encourage the forms of government which
best serve human fellowship and human rights and dignity, and it must resist those forms
which hinder or suppress these things.”1
So far, we have discussed the nature and praxis of political religion and political
theology at some length. Both theologies favor the Church’s getting involved in the
socio-political affairs of the world. In a nutshell, the Church’s politics or the Church’s
involvements in the world entails the Church’s engagement in the praxis of liberation.
Moltmann says: “A political theology of hope must thus join its visions of the future with
the research into what is possible today and relate both to human beings for whose hope it
wants to become accountable.”2 Indeed, if political theology is recognized by its critical
and public voice in favor of the voiceless and the oppressed, we can say that it gets
involved in every sphere of life and in many ways amounts to liberation theology: it
speaks for the rights of human beings, of women, nature, the poor, workers and citizens.
Furthermore, like liberation theology, political theology brings to light revolutionary
traditions of the Bible and Christian history showing that Jesus is considered as the model
has two problems: 1) His socio-political analysis concerning poverty and social-economic life in socialist
countries as opposed to capitalist countries, as described above, can be called into question; 2) His
preferential option of economics over liberty is paradoxical within the vocation of liberation theology,
which advocates the liberation of man in all ways.
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 177-178. In this sense, can communism in China
serve in promoting justice and peace there? Today, the Church does not talk about opposing the communist
system per se in China or Vietnam, but only encourages them to respect human rights and religious
freedom. In my opinion, for the democratic system to work well in Third World countries, requires a good
level of education and human development, but very often this requirement is not achieved. In other words,
First World countries often try to impose the democratic system on these countries, but they are not yet
prepared for it and war often results in countries with young democratic governments. Furthermore, in a
country where there are varied ethnic communities, can democratic systems respect the right of minority
ethnic groups? Very often the major ethnic groups win elections, and are hardly concerned about the minor
ethnic groups.
2
J. MOLTMANN, “Hope and the Biomedical Future of Man”, p. 91-92.
345
for Christians: he came near the sick, the poor and the oppressed. These kinds of people
also exist in society today, and they too need to be near Jesus Christ.1
1.3. Liberation theology

In Latin America, in the decade sixties of the twentieth century, an awareness
grew of the existence of social injustice on the whole continent, where poverty was the
predominating preoccupation of people and the Church. As in Europe at the same time,
theologians posed questions regarding the extent to which the Church should get involved
in that problem and how it was going to deal with it.
A great majority of the population in Latin America are Christians, including
politicians, who, at that period, engaged in popular political movements reacting to other
political systems (dictatorships or democracies) which did not seem to respond to the
needs of the people. At the same time, they also called change in Church policy. We
could say that there was no real distinction between the Church’s mission and politics.
Citizens became actively involved both in Church and political affairs because they
wanted to erase poverty. People were aware that the cause of poverty2 is injustice
originating in oppression. Thus, Christians became engaged at the same time in the
Church and in politics in order to liberate people from oppression.3
Although the efforts of liberation theology met with some resistance from the
conservative elements in the traditional Churches and in politics, as well as from the
“religious feeling of the poverty-stricken, intimidated people themselves, who [clung] to
the ritual religious security and the cults of consolation, rather than to the prophetic
visions of their own liberty,”4 the majority of people in Latin America felt the urgency of
the engagement of all people of the Church and politics in the liberation movement.
People who practice liberation theology reflect and act in the light of hope for a
better future life, not in some other world, but in this world in their lifetime. Moltmann
sees that both the theology of hope and the theology of liberation want to change the
world; both rely on the biblical traditions of the promise of freedom and historical
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, God for a Secular Society, p 58.
2
Poverty here does not mean exclusively material poverty, but also other types of poverty which degrade
human values.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Teología política y teología de la liberación”, p. 490-491.
4
346
experiences of God; both practice the mediation of liberation and redemption. The
theology of liberation recognizes that the situation in South America is the kairos of the
contextual hermeneutics of the gospel. “The time was ripe for a new active political
involvement by Christians in the affairs of the time. In the Latin America ‘continent of a
new beginning’ liberation theology came into being, and in 1968 convinced the Bishops’
Conference in Medellin that the ‘preferential options for the poor’ was a necessity.”1
1.3.1. The background and nature of liberation theology

According to Gustavo Gutiérrez, the birth of the liberation theology2 was due to
awareness of unequal socio-economic situations on different continents. This awareness
stemmed from comparing the lives of the poor with those of the rich; this comparison
arose because of increased travel coupled with faster and more efficient communication.
Furthermore, the real engine in the awareness of poverty originated in people’s desires
for a better life. “They see the process of transformation as a quest to satisfy the most
fundamental human aspirations - liberty, dignity, the possibility of personal fulfillment
for all. Or at least they would like the process to be moving toward these goals.”3 In this
context, poor countries do not merely want to imitate the very model of rich countries,
considered the fruit of injustice, but expect to go beyond them by overcoming poverty
and creating a juster society: “The poor countries are not interested in modeling
themselves after the rich countries, among other reasons because they are increasingly
convinced that the status of the latter is the fruit of injustice and coercion. It is true that
the poor countries are attempting to overcome material insufficiency and misery but it is
in order to achieve a more human society.”4 Along the same lines as Gutiérrez, Moltmann
says: “The poor don’t want just to be about what they don’t have; they also want to be
1
J. MOLTMANN, Experiences in Theology, p. 115; cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Spirit of Life, p. 109-110. Cf.
CELAM, Medellin (1968), Pobreza de la Iglesia, n. 9-18.
2
Liberation theology is different from the theology of development and the theology of revolution. The
theology of development is concerned with development programmes in industrial Western countries, in
which theologians realize that development often results at the expense of exploiting the poor. The
theology of revolution advocates political revolution in order to bring justice to oppressed people; its goal
is socialism (cf. J. MOLTMANN, God for a Secular Society, p. 47).
3
G. GUTIÉRREZ, A Theology of Liberation, p. 13. Here, we can see similar aspects in terms of human desire
and hope between liberation theology and the theology of hope.
4
Ibid., p. 14.
347
valued for what they are.”1 The poor in South America do not only want to be liberated
from poverty; they also want to hold on to their culture and religious traditions.
Liberation theology in South America earned international recognition
particularly when theologians of liberation theology co-operated in writing the documents
of Medellin and Puebla.
According to Moltmann, with the globalization of the economy, injustices and
inhumanities are found not only in Third World but also in the First World of Western
Europe and North America where millions of people live below the poverty level; the
elderly, the handicapped and the unproductive are not appreciated and unjustly
discriminated against. “The opening of world markets not only bring our First World
industries into the Third World but also bring the Third World to us. We ourselves have
become the Third World.”2 Therefore, the Liberation Theology of Latin America has
become relevant to Europe.3
According to Moltmann, liberation theology has become a global theology
because there are the poor all over the world. It has also been heartily adopted in Asia,
where, however, it has yet to integrate itself into Asian culture. Asian liberation theology
finds its particular environment in which the reality of poverty and the existence of the
great religions are present in the majority of population. Thus, the liberation theology of
Asia has to be a theology of dialogue, which has become, too, global in virtue of
globalization, the poor and the fact that the great Asian religions have also migrated to
Europe and America. Furthermore, we should also take into account the ‘ancient culture
and religions’ existing in South America and in Africa, as well as in other regions. In this
context, interfaith dialogue becomes an ever more important factor in liberation theology.
Thus, while in the past liberation theology was limited itself exclusively to socio-
economic orientations, it has since expanded into cultural and religious dimensions. This
1
2
J. MOLTMANN, “The Theology of our Liberation” in Theological Digest 45:1 1998, p. 3-5, at 3; cf. God
for a Secular Society, p. 66-67.
3
Moltmann does not say it explicitly, but I see that liberation theology and political theology meet one
another in their task of globally social criticism.
348
expansion is understandable and welcomed in liberation theology, for man is really only
liberated when he is free in all aspects of life: economic, political, cultural and religious.1
Moltmann argues that liberation theology, like political theology, has to include
the ecological perspective in its purveyance because human beings as well as humankind
as a whole have to rely on nature to survive. Economy and ecology go hand in hand. Man
is part of nature and he depends on its being intact; he is ultimately oppressed when
nature is exploited and overused; he is liberated when nature is liberated from
exploitation. Moltmann writes: “The ecosystem of the blue planet earth is spinning out of
balance… The destruction of the world that we see daily before us is grounded in a
disturbed relationship of modern people to nature. It is not possible to make oneself a
Lord over nature and an owner of nature, because we, ourselves are only a ‘part’ of
nature and dependent on it.”2 Ecological-political theology has flourished in Europe and
in North America3 (in 1990s), as well as in South America. In fact, in 1992, the general
conference of the Latin American Episcopate in Santo Domingo also comprises a chapter
on ecology and the earth.4
Liberation theology has gone through different methods of analysis: from
development theory to dependence theory. According to development theory, poverty is
the consequence of a lack of development; therefore, in order to liberate people from
poverty, there is need of economic development. According to the dependence theory,
poverty is a result of the rich who become rich at the expense of the poor: “Economic
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, God for a Secular Society, p. 62-63. For a further study of the liberation theology in
Asia, see M. AMALADOSS, Vivre en liberté: les theologies de la liberation en Asie, Bruxelles: Lumen Vitae,
1998.
2
J. MOLTMANN, “Progress and Abyss: Remembering the Future of the Modern World” in Review and
Expositor 97, 2000, p. 301-314, at 307. Moltmann praises the Orthodox Church for expressing the cosmic
dimensions in its liturgy, which is the liberating feast of the resurrection of Christ that has its effects on all
creatures (cf. J. MOLTMANN, “The Liberating Feast”, p. 81).
3
In North America, ecological-political theology is represented by, among others, J. COBB, “Jürgen
Moltmann’s Ecological Theology in Process Perspective” in The Asbury Theological Journal 55, 2000, p.
115-128; Sustainability: economics, ecology and justice, Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1992; For the Common
Good: redirecting the economy toward community, the environment, and a sustainable future, 2nd ed.,
Boston: Beacon, 1994.
4
See L. BOFF, La terre en devenir, Paris: Édition Albin Michel, 1994; Ecology and Liberation, Maryknoll,
New York: Orbis Books, 1995; CELAM, Santo Domingo Conclusiones (1992), San Salvador: Imprenta
Criterio, 1993, n. 169-177.
349
progress is always unequal: the progress of the one is at the expense of others. The
differences between poor and rich are growing.”1
According to dependence theory, in order to erase poverty, we need to suppress
the oppression and exploitation performed by the rich upon the poor, the oppressors upon
the oppressed. The dependence theory makes two main points: 1) European colonies
became rich because of their act of exploiting the resources of Latin America; thus, Latin
America became poor. In this sense, Moltmann writes; “It was the enslavement of
Africans between 1496 and 1888 that made the colonial slave-economy in America
possible. Sugar, cotton, coffee, and tobacco are known as the ‘slave crops’. It was only
the gold and silver out of Latin America that created the capital necessary of the
construction of the industrial society of Europe.”2 2) The poor countries of South
America became dependent on Europe. Therefore, there is a need for self-liberation from
this dependence. The rich countries also exploit the poor countries through the very
subtle method of ‘patronizing economic gifts’. In other words, once they get used to
consuming the products of the rich countries given as gifts, the poor become dependent
on these products, and thus have to import them. They become poorer through the high
cost of the import. Moltmann says: “Foreign aid in terms of patronizing economic gifts is
in continual danger of making men economically dependent.”3
The dependence theory was adopted mostly by the first generation of liberation
theologians. The problem of this theory is that it identifies the rich as the only cause of
the impoverishment of the masses in Latin America, while in reality its cause is complex.
It generalizes that, a priori the rich are the exploitative people, which necessarily leads to
class struggles. Following the same argumentation as liberation theology, Moltmann
says: “But the person who allows only his success to be ascribed to him, and not his guilt,
has not come of age, and makes himself incapable of responsibility.”4 Moltmann means
that the rich do not become rich because of their successful efforts, but there is always
injustice hidden in their richness. The rich are always guilty.
1
J. MOLTMANN, Experiences in Theology, p. 228; cf. “The Theology of our Liberation”, p. 3; Jesus Christ
for Today’s World, p. 17.
2
J. MOLTMANN, “Progress and Abyss: Remembering the Future of the Modern World”, p. 307.
3
J. MOLTMANN, Religion, Revolution, and the Future, New York: Charles Scribner’s , 1969, p. 105.
4
350
In connection with dependence theory, Moltmann and Gutiérrez also point out
that this theory misses an important point in the reality of liberation theology: people of
Latin America also recognize, acknowledge and develop the positive aspects they already
possess in their religious, cultural, ecological and economic traditions and resources.
They realize that economic liberation is only one aspect of an overall liberation that is
supposed to include other aspects that are cultural, political and social, etc. For them,
liberation does not mean abandoning all that they have. On the contrary, they want to
discover the good elements already in their possession and retain them. They do not want
merely to follow the model of the rich, who are considered to be so as a result of
injustice.1
1.3.2. Theology of liberation and redemption

The oppressed and the poor get involved in the movement of the praxis of
liberation, with its foundation in the Sacred Scripture. It involves two elements: protest
against oppression and the religious experiences encountered. One may pose a critical
question: which elements of the two initiate the process? The answer is that it is not one
alternative exclusive of the other one, but the two elements go hand in hand and reinforce
one another. To explain the process of the beginning of liberation theology, Moltmann
interprets it as involving the following two possible processes: 1) “People in the base
communities read the stories they find in the Bible, and recognize their own historical
situation, and experience together the Spirit who liberates them. 2) People become aware
of their historical situation and begin to understand the stories they find in the Bible
because in them they recognize themselves.”2
Biblical reference is the most important source of a liberation theology wherein
people can find their inspiration, strength and a guarantee of obtaining their goals.
Biblical stories supply them with memories and expectations. Thus, remembrances of
God’s history in the world and the expectations in the kingdom promised by God give
people power and strength to activate the movement of liberation.3 The stories of exodus
and Jesus Christ’s suffering and death supply them with revolutionary remembrances and
1
Cf. ibid., p. 229; God for a Secular Society, p. 63; G. GUTIÉRREZ, A Theology of Liberation, p. 14.
2
3
Cf. ibid., p. 111.
351
have a liberating effect on them; they give hope to people and inspire them to practice
self-liberation, as well as liberating others, which is promised in the kingdom of God:
“He who was crucified by this world is expected to come as the liberator of this world,
and the liberation he (Jesus) brings about is already experienced in the powers of the
Spirit… The raising of the crucified into the coming glory of God is recalled as the
source of [this] freedom, and its effects are experienced in faith.”1 The kingdom of the
redeemed already begins now. For the oppressed and the poor, there is no separation
between redemption and liberation; they belong to the unique history of God’s
relationship with the world. “Liberation theology does not accept two different histories,
a world history and a salvation history, for salvation history has to do with the salvation
of this whole created world.”2 Because salvation is not limited to only the salvation of
souls, but includes every human being, the whole of humanity and the earth, “the
economic, political and cultural liberations of men and women from exploitation,
repression and alienation belong just as much to the work of redemption as the
forgiveness of sins and hope for eternal life.”3
Redemption and liberation do not divide the history of humanity into two sides:
before and after death. Experiences of redemption need to be tasted in experiences of
liberation now. Moltmann regrets that Pope John Paul referred to the alternative between
liberation and redemption when he taught priests in Nicaragua on March 4th, 1983 to only
get involved in the spiritual care of the faithful, but to avoid participating in the struggle
for people’s liberation.4 Liberation theology does not follow the wrong direction of
1
J. MOLTMANN, “ “The Liberating Feast” in Concilium, vol. 1, n. 10, 1974, p. 74-84, at 78-79.
2
J. MOLTMANN, The Spirit of Life, p. 111-112.
3
Ibid., p. 112. J. B. Metz too calls for the Church to get involved in politics. He rediscovers the socio-
political aspect of the Gospels and holds that the Church and faith do not mean only serving the private and
religious realm, but rather also have a social and public implication. In fact, “the cross of Jesus, from which
faith receives its orientation and promises does not stand ultimately in the privatissimum of the purely
individual-personal realm … Faith must take its part in the struggle for the one world; it must relate itself to
the publicity, the sociality, and the concrete history of this world…It must critically concern itself with the
great political-social utopias, with the promises which grow out of our modern society, of universal peace
and universal justice… Only in the consciousness of their public responsibility can faith and Church take
seriously their task of criticizing society. Only thus can the Church avoid becoming merely an ideological
superstructure built above a certain existing social order” (J. B. METZ, “The Controversy about the Future
of Man, An Answer to Roger Garaudy” in Journal of Ecumenical Studies 4, 1967, p. 223-234, at. 234).
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Spirit of Life, p. 112. I do not find any text corresponding to Moltmann’s
accusations against Pope John Paul II. On the contrary, the Pope encourages human formation that helps
man to attain not only what he should have but also become what he shoud be. Cf. Insegnamenti di
352
reducing redemption to political liberation, as they were accused by the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith, but tries to “forge a new bond between historical liberation and
eschatological redemption.”1
If redemption entails liberation, liberation also requires redemption. There are
some who want to use human effort to liberate the world; they devote all their time and
energy to achieving their goal of liberating the world; they no longer need God for help;
they no longer pray; but they experience more failure than success. According to
Moltmann, Christian political life and religious devotional life must go hand in hand.
This causes tension in Christian life, but it is necessary.2 “The religion of transcendence
and the religion of solidarity are two sides of the Christian way of life. If they are
separated and polarized in opposition to one another, the new life is either hindered or
destroyed. No one who prays in Christ’s name and cries out for redemption can put up
with oppression. No one who fights against injustice can dispense with prayer for
redemption.”3
The ultimate goal of liberation is freedom, which should be found both on earth
and in the next world. If the purpose of liberation is to find freedom only on this earth,
then liberation will be only a temporal consolation; on the other hand, if liberation
expects to meet its goal only in the other world, then it is not in keeping with the promise
of God, who promised to accompany his people throughout their journey as he did in the
journey of his chosen people form exodus to their promised land.4
1.3.3. Praxis of liberation theology

According to liberation theology, the praxis of liberation, together with
theological reflection, constitutes the first condition for the existence of liberation
theology: first orthopraxis, then orthodoxy. This indicates the importance of the praxis of
liberation when one practices the theology of liberation. Moltmann says: “But one has to
realize that also the hopes of the oppressed and suffering remain only poetry so long as
Giovanni Paolo II, VI, 1, 1983 (Gennaio-Giugno), Roma: Liberia Editrice Vaticana, 1983, p. 558-576,
particularly at p. 563-564).
1
Ibid., p. 113; cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, “Instruction on Certain Aspects of the
Theology of Liberation”, in Origins 14, n. 13, 1984, p. 194-204,
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Holy Spirit, p. 282-288.
3
Ibid., p. 287.
4
353
these hopes are not joined to what is politically and technically possible today. Without
the “art of the possible, the art of hope becomes the opium of the people.” 1
1.3.3.1. The fundamentals of praxis

If liberation theology starts to exist with praxis, then it has to start with the poor
and the oppressed, who try to liberate themselves and cry for help. “The process of
liberation is sustained by ‘the movement of the people’. Theology is reflection on this
movement in the light of the gospel. Liberation theology is contextually localized and
conditioned, deliberately so. Its locus theologicus - its Sitz im Leben - is the suffering of
the poor. Participation in the movement of the people goes ahead of the theology: first
orthopraxis, then orthodoxy.”2 The Church participates in the movement of the people by
virtue of its ‘preferential option for the poor’. Liberation theology uses sociological
analyses, such as the Marxist-Leninist social analysis of imperialism, in order to expose
the causes of poverty.3
In view of liberating oppressed and exploited people, Latin American theology of
revolution interprets Scripture from a viewpoint of liberation. “If it is read in the light of
the experiences and hopes of the oppressed, the Bible’s revolutionary themes - promise,
exodus, resurrection and Spirit - come alive.”4 The history of the liberation of Israel out
of bondage is the image of the oppressed and the poor of New Testament times.
Moltmann distinguishes ‘the theology of revolution’5 from ‘the theology of liberation’.
He warns the theology of revolution against three possible mistakes: 1) It wants
Christianity to take a specific form in its political involvement for the people and with the
people. 2) It understands the term ‘revolution’ in a European sense, which connotes the
1
J. MOLTMANN, “Hope and the Biomedical Future of Man”, p. 91-92.
2
J. MOLTMANN, God for a Secular Society, p., 48. However, Moltmann disagrees with this method
because, according to him, if praxis precedes theological reflection, it can give rise “to the suspicion that
the Christian faith is only being used to support preciously selected sociological analyses of socio-
economic wretchedness, and is being pressed into service so that a presupposed socio-political option may
be imbued with Christian engagement.” “In every involvement, perception and decision come together, just
as in every theory experience and perception act in combination. No one decides blindly and only thinks
later about what has actually committed himself to” (J. MOLTMANN, Experience in Theology, p. 294-295).
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Teología política y teología de la liberación”, p. 491; God for a Secular Society, p.
48.
4
5
For a study of the theology of liberation, see E. FEIL and R. WETH (eds), Diskussion zur ‘Theologie der
Revolution’, Munich: Kaiser, 1969; G. GOLLWITZER, Die kapitalistische Revolution, Munich: Kaiser, 1974;
T. RENDTORFF and H. E. TÖDT, Theologie der Revolution, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1968; J. MIGUEZ-BONINO,
Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974.
354
creation of a new world; on the contrary, ‘revolution’ should mean regeneration,

reformation, and renovation of the world. 3) Finally it draws on practical political
interpretation of the Bible resulting only from the experiences of the poor and oppressed.1
Moltmann feels that the new liberation theology is a better option than
revolutionary theology: “The new theology of liberation picks up insights from political
theology and the theology of revolution, but takes them a stage further with the
appropriate concept of liberation.”2 Liberation Theology has as its object abolishing not
only the offences against human rights, such as exploitation, oppression, racism,
dictatorship, but also the roots of these offences, which are sins and the psychological and
social effect of sins. In addition, liberation theology also takes into account the
experience of grace and hope for future.
“The open concept of liberation is thus more comprehensive than the limited
concept of political liberation or the fixed concept of revolution. Liberation includes
economics and religion, the present and the future, experience and hope.”3 Moltmann
rightly points out that although liberation theology takes sides with the oppressed and
poor, it also behooves the rich and the oppressors, for all human beings need liberation
and a better future. With regard to this point, some interpretations of the theology of
liberation opt exclusively for the poor and the oppressed, but ignore the needs of the
upper classes. In my judgment, even the documents of Medellin and Puebla seem to
involve this oversight.
In opting for the poor and the oppressed and in liberating them, Moltmann
suggests negating the oppressors’ power in order to liberate the oppressed; he even seems
to favor power struggles: “Christian universalism will therefore be realized in particular
conflict situation in a partisanship of this kind; otherwise it is still in danger of being
abstract…Conversely, however, any partisan intervention in power struggles loses its
Christian legitimation if its loses sight of the universal goal.”4 What is the goal of this
partisan intervention? Its goal is the liberation of both the oppressed and the oppressors.
Moltmann seems to be ambiguous; this may be because he wants to apply a dialectical
1
2
Ibidem.
3
4
Ibid., p. 352.
355
method, i.e. denying and excluding in order to save and include the oppressors: “The rich
and the mighty are not rejected out of revenge but in order to save them.”1 He approves
of power struggles through partisanship as long as they reach the purpose of universally
saving both the oppressed and the oppressors.
The question is whether we can include and save both oppressors and the
oppressed through options for the poor and the oppressed without doing away with the
rich and the oppressors. The answer is yes and this is what the legitimate theology of
liberation wants to adopt and the Conference of Latin American Bishops calls for.2
We conclude that Moltmann applies the dialectical analyses of his theology of
hope in the present situation. Thus, he concludes not only that because the present is
negative, it must be abolished and replaced by the future, but also that since the class of
oppressors is negative, it must be abolished and replaced by the class of the poor. In this
sense, Z. Hayes affirms that Moltmann’s dialectical theology of hope spurs on political
revolution: “We can move into the future only through the upheaval of the present. When
such a dialectic is translated into political terms, it is the recipe for revolution of the most
radical sort.”3
1.3.3.2. The objects of praxis

The theology of liberation focuses critically on the various aspects of social,
cultural, political, ecological, and feminist theology. It has the purpose of promoting life
and proposes efforts for liberating people from violence, injustice, oppression, poverty
and inequality.4
Moltmann indicates that the praxis of liberation theology has to begin with the
Church itself and within the Church itself. “Without a librated Church there can be no
liberated society; without a reform of the Churches there can be no social revolution.”5
In fact, the Churches of Latin America, with the documents of Medellin and
Puebla, appeared to be renewing themselves, through implementation of the Church’s
1
Ibidem.
2
Cf. CELAM, Puebla, n.. 486, 544.
3
Z. HAYES, Vision of a Future, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1990, p. 136.
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “The theology of our liberation” in Theology Digest, 45:1, 1998, p. 3-5.
5
J. MOLTMANN, God for a Secular Society, p. 64. I have already discussed ubiquitously in this thesis the
subject of how the Church can liberate people from within the Church as part of the Church’s renewal. This
subject will be discussed yet further in the section ‘The people of God’ below.
356
option for the poor, and many people hoped that the Church in Latin America would lead
the reformation of all Churches in the world. However, according to Moltmann, we have
been disappointed, because Pope John Paul II appointed many new bishops and cardinals
who oppose liberation theology, and Cardinal Ratzinger censured Leonardo Boff.1
Moltmann at one point comments that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in
its two letters, delivers a balanced judgment toward liberation theology; on another
occasion, he protests against Rome’s condemnation of liberation theology.2
If we want to liberate human beings from oppression, we need to engage both in
criticizing political systems and in practicing liberation theology.
The praxis of liberation theology focuses on three dimensions: economic,
political, and cultural. From the economic dimension, comes hope for liberation from
economic struggle and exploitation of nature. From the political dimension, comes hope
for liberation from repression and promotion of human rights and dignity. From the
cultural dimension, comes hope for better education for everyone and an end to racial
and sexual discrimination and domination, respect and co-operation between human
beings of the same generation as well as longitudinal generations, peace and harmony
between man and nature.3 All of these dimensions of liberation are important and should
be practiced at the same time. When there is lack of liberation in one dimension, there
will be no liberation in the other. In writing or in speaking, although only one dimension
1
2
Among the principle reasons why Rome speaks out against liberation theology for employing Marxist
philosophy, I want to name four: 1) Marxist social analysis of the cause of poverty concludes that the rich
and the upper-class of society exploit the poor; 2) In order to erase poverty, the only effective method is
class struggle, accompanied by revolution, 3) The gospel is reduced to the norm of social justice; in this
context, material life is elevated to first priority, and spiritual salvation becomes secondary. The kingdom
of God is identified with liberation movements and man can find his salvation through class struggle; 4)
Individual persons are subjugated into the context of social entities. From these four allegedly deviated
dimensions of liberation theology, many more consequences result (cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE
OF THE FAITH, “Instruction on Certain Aspects of the Theology of Liberation”, in Origins 14, n. 13, 1984,
p. 194-204, more specifically on p. 195, 198-200; cf. J. MOLTMANN, Experiences in Theology, p. 244-248).
3
The political dimension and the human-human relation dimension are already treated in the section on
‘human rights’ and the ‘unity of mankind’ within the section ‘hope for humanity’, p. 226-235; the human-
nature relation dimension is already explored in the section ‘hope for nature, p. 246-268; the individual
personal dimension is already studied in the section ‘hope and despair’, p. 142-158; as well as in the section
‘hope in righteousness and in resurrection’, p. 162-197; the economic dimension will be studied below in
the section ‘liberation of the oppressors and of the oppressed’.
357
is first mentioned, this does not mean that another dimension, not mentioned, lacks
primary importance.1
Furthermore, according to Moltmann, the Catholic Church in Latin America
should continue to fight on for its reformation and liberation from the ‘feudalistically
authoritarian, hierarchical structure of the colonial Church’. The Church should be a
Church of the people, as the Second Vatican Council teaches, in which men and women
have their voices, duties and gifts to contribute. Liberation theologians should continue
the fight.2
1.3.4. Liberation of the oppressors and the oppressed

God, in his justice, restores not only righteousness to the oppressed and those who
are in the grip of sin but also liberates offenders who cause injustice to fellowmen, living
creatures and nature. If some liberation theologians focus only on the liberation of the
oppressed, recently theology is also becoming aware of the need for liberating the
oppressors. This particular point is emphasized by J. Moltmann, who holds that both the
oppressed and the oppressors are victims of human injustice. There will be no justice and
justification at all if oppressors do not convert. Therefore, “the liberation of the oppressed
from the suffering of oppression requires the liberation of the oppressor from the injustice
of oppression. Otherwise there is no liberation and no justice that can create peace.”3 It is
right that we pay attention to the cries of the poor and the oppressed, but it is not right
that we ignore the cries of the oppressors. In fact, the cries of the oppressors are as loud
as those of the poor and oppressed. They too are victims and need to be liberated.4
1
J. MOLTMANN, “Liberation in the Light of Hope”, p. 425-429.
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, God for a Secular Society, p. 65.
3
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Die Rechtfertigung Gottes” in Stimmen der Zeit 219, 2001, p. 435-441, at. 437;
“Jesus Christus - Gottes Gerechtigkeit in der Welt der Opfer und Täter” in Stimmen der Zeit 219, 2001, p.
507-519. In my opinion, even today, both theology and the Church, while emphasizing options taken for
the poor and the oppressed, still fail to advocate liberation for the oppressors who fail to take responsibility
for improving justice in the world. This practice is especially common in the documents of the Conference
of Bishops of South America. In fact, salvation for the rich and the oppressors is highlighted in the New
Testament with Jesus’ sharing tables with sinners and tax collectors (cf. Mt. 9: 10-13) and preaching to
those who, by collaborating with the Romans, oppressed the people (cf. Lk. 15: 1-2) In this sense, no
‘option’ should be given to either the rich or poor, the oppressed or oppressors, because all need salvation.
This observation needs to be translated into action on every level of the Church and society if we expect to
improve justice and peace in the world, whereas, both the Medellin and Puebla documents emphasize the
‘preferential option for the poor’ (cf. CELAM, Medellin, Pobreza de la Iglesia, n. 1-18; Puebla, n. 1134-
1165).
358
1.3.4.1. Christ’s presence with and in the poor

Liberation theology and the Church of liberation have the purpose of liberating
people. According to liberation theology, the Church needs to adopt a ‘preferential option
for the poor’. Two practices: liberation and ‘preferential options for the poor’ have
biblical foundations.
Psalm 96:2 sees “the messianic gospel in the universal term: ‘Yahweh is king’
means more than the restoration of Israel and Zion; it is salvation for the nations too.”1
Jesus fulfilled the announcement of Isaiah: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim
liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed to go free” (Lk.
4: 18, cf. Is. 61:1-2; Mt. 11:4). This biblical verse applies to Jesus Christ, who is sent out
to the poor, the sick, the hopeless and the oppressed.2
The poor include the sick, crippled, homeless (cf. Lk. 14:21-32), the beggars (cf.
Lk. 18: 35-43), the prostitutes (cf. Lk. 7:37-50; Mt. 21:31), etc. Jesus and his disciples
were in solidarity with the poor and became poor themselves (cf. Mt. 6:25-33; Lk. 9:58).
All these poor people are blessed: ‘Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven’ (Mt. 5:3).3
All these stories of Jesus’ association with the poor indicate his preference for
them. But what did he bring them? Certainly he did not bring them material wealth; he
brought them ‘a new dignity’: “The poor, the slaves and the prostitutes are no longer the
passive objects of oppression and humiliation; they are now their own conscious subjects,
with all the dignity of God’s first children.”4 Now with the grace of God, they can help
themselves; they have the courage to stand up, to liberate themselves.
Moltmann mentions the Last Judgment story of Matthew 25 in order to point out
that the poor or ‘the least of my brethren’ constitute the normative element for judgment:
Jesus identifies himself with the poor: ‘whatever one does for the poor or the least of his
brethren, he does it for Him’ (cf. Mt. 25:40). Moltmann concludes: “the ‘preferential
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Ways of Jesus Christ, p. 96.
2
Cf. ibidem.
3
Although Mt. 5: 3 refers to the poor in spirit, for Moltmann it is also applied to the poor (sick, crippled,
homeless, the beggars, the prostitutes, etc.). These people do not have to wait until the coming kingdom to
be blessed, but are already blessed now. Jesus and his disciple “have perceived that the kingdom of God
already belong to the poor” (J. MOLTMANN, The Ways of Jesus Christ, p. 100).
4
Ibid., p. 101.
359
option for the poor’ is the option for Christ, who is present in them.”1 In fact, God’s
option for the poor is consistent in both the New and Old Testaments. In the Old
Testament, ‘[The Lord] executes justice for the oppressed’ (Ps. 146:7). “In the New
Testament this theological concept is Christologically fulfilled through the One who
proclaims the kingdom of God to the poor and calls them blessed in the light of the
kingdom, the One who himself became poor in order to make many rich, and who called
‘the least’ among the people his brothers.”2
Putting in practice the teaching and examples of Jesus, the first communities of
the Church lived in an atmosphere of freedom and fraternity; they put in common
everything they had so that there would be no poor person among them (cf. Act 4:32-35).
1.3.4.2. Preferential options for the poor

Moltmann analyses the negative consequences3 of globalization. Globalization of
the economy has two consequences: 1) moving jobs from First World countries to the
Third World results in a loss of jobs in industrial countries, 2) because salaries are lower
in developing countries than in First World countries, the owners of industries profit
more from this shift and become richer. Thus, as a consequence of globalization, there
are more poor in both the First and Third worlds. Facing this reality, the Church is called
to serve the Kingdom of God by practices of options for the poor. The Church’s opting
for the poor follows in the footsteps of Jesus who always sided with the poor.
That Jesus Christ identified himself with the poor and the ‘the least of the
brethren’, is a model for the Church. In fact, if the thesis ‘ubi Christus, ibi ecclesia’ is
valid, then the Church has to be wherever Christ is, i.e. with the poor and ‘the least’,
giving them food and drink, sheltering them, visiting them. Moltmann asks another
interesting question: do these people need material and emotional supports or do they
1
J. MOLTMANN, Experience in Theology, p. 235. This is the interpretation of Moltmann, liberation
theology and the Church of Latin America. However, in my opinion, Jesus did not explicitly say or show
that he opts preferentially for the poor. Many other biblical passages also report Jesus’ acts and words
favouring the non-poor. Jesus may have many options, but all lead to the sole option of salvation for the
entire world. In this sense the notion of ‘preferential options for the poor’ can misguide us.
2
3
Many would say that there are also positive consequences of globalisation; it is not our purpose to
numerate them here.
360
need Christ the most? The answer is “it is the first place faith, the faith, namely, the least
of the brethren are waiting in Christ’s stead for the deeds of the just man.”1
Furthermore, we can draw another message from the biblical passage of the Last
Judgment: the poor, the unknown and disowned brethren also belong to the Church
community. We can combine two statements of Jesus: ‘Whatever you do to the least of
my brethren, you do it unto me’ and ‘He who hears you hears me’, and recognize that the
Church goes out to meet ‘the least of his brethren’ and they listen to the Church. Also, the
Church does not distinguish its professed members from the non-professed members of
the Body of Christ. The question is not how ‘the least of the brethren’ respond to the
Church, but “how the Church responds to the presence of Christ in those who are
‘outside’, hungry, thirsty, sick, naked, and imprisoned. It is not a question of the
integration of Christians outside the Church into Christianity in its ecclesiastical form; it
is a matter of the Church’s integration in Christ’s promised presence: ubi Christus, ibi
ecclesia.”2
This is a new way of seeing the theology of liberation, which is not only a
theology of Latin America or of the Third World, but is now universal. It “exceeds its
Roman Catholic boundaries and becomes catholic in the wider, ecumenical sense. It even
goes beyond the boundaries of Christian religious communities and strengthens every
effort to liberate people from injustice and oppression.”3
The Church of liberation practices the ‘preferential option for the poor’; what is
the consequence of this option? Is it exclusive? Don’t rich people need the Church too?4
Moltmann develops out two aspects: 1) ‘for the poor means with the poor, 2) the poor are
for the Church.
Firstly, the poor do not want the Church to be exclusively for them; they want the
Church to be with them. The Church cannot do anything for the poor if it does not
1
2
Ibid., p. 129.
3
J. MOLTMANN, “The theology of our liberation”, p.5.
4
In my view, nobody has posed the question as to whether the ‘preferential option for the poor’ can have
negative consequences, i.e. excluding the non-poor. This preferential choice can be misunderstood or the
words expressed do not convey what the Church really wants to do for the poor without disregarding the
non-poor. In fact, only the Church of Latin America specifically uses the term ‘preferential option for the
poor’, while Jesus himself and the official documents of the Catholic Church do not employ it. Moltmann
only asks these questions indirectly and also answers them indirectly. However, he should be praised for
pointing out the positive and active role of the poor in the Church, as described below.
361
accompany them and if it is not one with them. “No one can do anything good for the
poor who does not live with the poor… The preferential option for the poor must never
make the poor the object of missionary endeavors, charitable care and revolutionary
leadership… They need brothers and sisters who live with them and listen to them before
they talk to them.”1
Secondly, Moltmann says that the preferential option for the poor presupposes the
option of the poor for the Church. In other words, the Church cannot be for the poor if the
poor do not belong to the Church; because the poor opt for the Church, the Church can be
there for the poor. In this sense, when the Church practices ‘the preference for the poor’,
it allows the poor to be subjects of the Church. Thus, they become active in the Church.
“It is not the Church which converts the poor; it is the poor who convert the Church of
Christ.”2
Having said all this, although the term ‘poverty’, is intended by liberation
theology and the Church of liberation as inclusive, i.e. spiritual and material poverty, it is
often applied exclusively to material poverty, even by Moltmann and other liberation
theologians. Although Moltmann understands that ‘poverty’ means both spiritual and
physical poverty, he and other theologians rarely mention the spiritual dimension, as
illustrated in this statement: “The poor are all who have to exist physically and spiritually
on the fringe of death… We ought not to confine poverty in religious terms to the general
dependence of men on God. But it cannot be interpreted in a merely economic or physical
sense either.”3 On the contrary, in theologizing, they often overemphasize the social,
cultural, psychological and physical dimensions and, particularly, the economic ones.
Indeed, should we review this section on ‘preferential options for the poor’, we see
readily that Moltmann has a tendency to limit ‘poverty’ to material poverty.4
Moltmann concludes: “The preferential option for the poor is first and foremost
an ecclesiastical term for a new orientation and social location of Christ’s Church, and it
is therefore also a political and moral term for solidarity with the poor, protest against
1
2
Ibid., p. 235.
3
4
In my judgment, if ‘poverty’ comprises both the physical and spiritual dimensions, we do not need a
‘preferential option for the poor’ because we can say either that all people are spiritually poor or that
spiritual poverty cannot, in practice, be objectively identified.
362
poverty, and the Church’s own commitment to the poor.”1 However, it is indispensable to
clarify that ‘preferential options for the poor’ require liberation theology and the Church
of liberation to identify who the poor are. Both oppressors and the oppressed, and the
materially rich and poor can be poor spiritually.
1.3.4.3. Liberation of the oppressed

People in both the First and Third worlds suffer because the injustice and violence
of society makes both victims and offenders - both exploiters and exploited - suffer. The
exploiters suffer for the evil committed, while the oppressed lose their rights and human
dignity; the offenders “become inhumane and unjust, the victim is dehumanized and
deprived of his or her rights.”2
According to Moltmann, liberation can only come if it is for both the oppressed
and the oppressors. However, the subject of ‘liberation for the oppressed’ is studied here
separately, for the purpose of analysis.
In order to accomplish the liberation of the oppressed, some misunderstandings
and obstacles need to be clarified:
In the past, Protestant theology’s focus on the salvation of individuals and on the
justification of offenders has not benefited the liberation dimension for the poor and the
oppressed, as Moltmann says: “The one-sided limitation to the perpetrators, and the
forgiveness of their active sins, has made Protestantism blind to the sufferings of the
victims, and to God’s saving ‘option for the poor’. Protestantism has underrated the
importance of ‘structural sin’ by looking too exclusively at individuals. But this is a one-
sided approach.”3 Although there might be the misinterpretation of the Protestant doctrine
of justification for individual offenders, today we should understand that justification can
entail the liberation of the oppressed: “The Protestant doctrine about the justification of
sinners, and today’s theology about liberation of the oppressed, do not have to be
antitheses. They can correct and enrich one another mutually. The full and complete
Protestant doctrine of justification is a liberation theology: it is about the liberation of
1
2
3
Ibid., p. 128.
363
people deprived of justice, and about the liberation of the unjust, so that they may all be
freed for a just society.”1
Furthermore, Moltmann also complains that today theologians in the West
haven’t done enough to awaken the sentiment of the need for the liberation of the rich in
the West through a reform of socio-economical system. There are those who want to help
the poor through charity and development programs, but this does not change the world
very much; they need to help change systematically the whole system of society,
empowering everyone with equal opportunities.2 To the present day, the situation of the
oppression in the world remains the same, for “the reason is probably that members of the
white, male, middle-class world are ready enough to recognize the need for the poor in
the Third World to be liberated, but are not prepared to see themselves as accomplices of
the forces that have oppressed them.”3
In addition, the problem of oppression is often a result of the circle of oppression.
Indeed, “in the political and economic system of our world many people are themselves
oppressed, and in their turn play their part in oppressing other people: they are ‘oppressed
oppressors’ or ‘victimized perpetrators’.”4
The oppressed believe that the oppressors are blind and cannot see themselves and
what they are doing to the oppressed; the oppressors cannot change their attitudes
towards themselves and the oppressed. This is one reason the oppressed feel they need to
stand up and liberate themselves. The oppressed take the initiatives to “free themselves
from the constraints of oppression and cut themselves off from their oppressors, so as to
find themselves and their own humanity.”5 The gospel account of Jesus’ Sermon on the
Mount (cf. Mt. 5:3-12; Lk. 6:20-23) indicates that liberation of the poor and oppressed
today can be based on Scripture. Indeed, the poor and oppressed are encouraged and
motivated by the gospel to liberate themselves. “What it (the gospel) does do is to give
them new dignity and a powerful stimulus. The poor are no longer the suffering objects
of oppression and humiliation. They are their own determining subjects, with the dignity
1
Ibidem, cf. p. 129.
2
3
Ibid., p. 188.
4
Ibidem; cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Spirit of Life, p. 125.
5
364
of God’s first children.”1 The oppressed should not let themselves become dependent on
the decision-making of others, but should decide for themselves; nor should they fall into
the trap of self-pity either. But should have confidence and courage in themselves.2
In fact, although Moltmann and liberation theology call for the public uprising of
the poor in order to liberate themselves (not in the sense of revolution, but taking their
own initiative), in reality, we need the active participation of the oppressor class in the
effort to liberate both the oppressed and the oppressors. In this sense, preferential options
for the poor cannot be one-sided and exclusive, but also includes an option for the rich:
“Since the option is called preferential, it must not be understood in a one-sided exclusive
sense. It is meant in a one-sided inclusive sense. God has mercy on the poor so that
through them he can save the rich too. The poor are saved through their liberation, the
rich through God’s judgment on their unjust wealth. So through the one-sided and
‘preferential’ option, all will finally be saved.”3
1.3.4.4. Liberation of the oppressors

“Life means ‘loving your neighbor as yourself’, not ‘subdue him and make him
submissive’. To oppress other people means to cut oneself off from God too, ‘for if a man
does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not
seen?’(cf. I John 4:20)”.4 The parable of the Good Samaritan (cf. Lk. 10:29-37) also
illustrates that our neighbors may be those who are different from us; they may be the
rich or the oppressors.
In this sense, liberation includes among its objects not only the oppressed but also
the oppressors, because oppressors are also our neighbors and brothers. Moltmann writes:
“Jesus turned to the sinners, tax-collectors and lepers in order to save the Pharisees and
the healthy as well. Paul turned to the Gentiles in order to save Israel too. Christian
partisan support for the oppressed is intentional and its goal is to save the oppressors
also.”5 The good news and salvation exclude nobody. The Gospel “brings freedom to all
men, for it brings rich and poor, healthy and sick, the powerful and the helpless for the
1
J. MOLTMANN, Jesus Christ for Today’s World, p. 17.
2
3
Ibid., p. 233.
4
Ibid., p. 185.
5
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 352; cf. The Ways of Jesus Christ, p. 98.
365
first time into that fellowship of poverty in which it is possible to talk without distinction
about ‘all men’.”1
Moltmann surmises that oppression involves both the subject and the object of the
act of oppression. Very often we only see what is pitiful for the oppressed, but Moltmann
sees that the oppressors are also deplorable. Both need help. “The oppressor acts
inhumanely, the victim is dehumanized. The evil the perpetrator commits robs him of his
humanity, the suffering he inflicts dehumanizes the victim.”2 Therefore, liberation must
have as its objective both sides of the victimization, the oppressors and the oppressed. In
order to liberate the oppressed, we need to liberate the oppressors at the same time. The
procedure of liberation extends not only to the oppressed but also to the offenders.3
Moltmann argues that the oppressors are not only the upper class in the Third
World, but also all people of the First World, who play their part in the unjust political
and economic structures that cause, as a direct consequence, oppression in the Third
World. “The economic progress is always unequal: the progress of the one is at the
expense of others. The differences between poor and rich are growing.”4 The oppressors
need both a guilty conscience and conversion.
First of all, we need to bring to show that many people are unconsciously
oppressing others. The problem is that the oppressors do not see that they are profiting
from the wrong they inflict on others. “They do not see the suffering which they have
caused their victims. They are blinded. They justify the wrong they have done with a core
of reasons. They are self-righteous.”5
We cannot undo the unjust situations in the world, unless the oppressors also take
the initiative in this effort. Moltmann argues that it is imperative for the oppressors to
“see themselves in the suffering eyes of their victims, and recognize themselves as
oppressors, so that by surmounting their compulsions to oppress the others they can then
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 79-80.
2
J. MOLTMANN, Experience in Theology, p. 185; cf.“Die Befreiung der Unterdrücker” in Evangelische
Theologie 38, 1978, p. 527-537, at 527.
3
Of course an effort is also required on the side of the oppressed. They need to be aware of their oppressive
lives and take the initiative in liberating themselves. The oppressors need the contribution of the oppressed.
The more the oppressed are liberated the more the oppressors are liberated too (cf. J. MOLTMANN, Jesus
Christ for Today’s World, p. 17).
4
5
366
overcome the isolation they have brought on themselves. They will have to withdraw
their violence and their structures of violence if they want to turn back again to the
community of human beings.”1
Moltmann asserts that “those who want to stand up for the liberty of the oppressed
must stop participating in their oppression, and must therefore begin to liberate
themselves. That is not a matter of having a guilty of conscience in social questions. It
has to do with conversion.”2 He proposes a method of reparation that involves not only
the oppressors and the victims, but also the whole community. “What is required is
atonement, or expiation, so that the justice that has been infringed is restored. And this
atonement has to take place in three different dimensions: first for the victim - then for
the person who has committed the wrong - and finally for the community in which
victims and perpetrators live together.”3 We need to convert and ask for forgiveness from
God, who will atone for our guilt. We ourselves cannot atone for our sins; only God,
through the death and resurrection of Jesus, can atone for our sins.4 The gospel does not
exclude the rich, but embraces them and calls them to conversion. They need to turn
away from violence to justice, from isolation to community, from death to life.
Conversion also calls for the reform of the whole community and the unjust systems in
society. The first communities of the early Church mention the example of the rich who
1
2
Ibid., p. 188. How can the rich liberate themselves? Moltmann says that they need to convert themselves
and stop participating in the oppression. This answer is not specific with regard to how to ‘stop
participating in the oppression’. In my view, the story of the rich young man in the Gospel of Matthew 19:
16-23 can be an example. The essence of this story is the detachment to material wealth. There are four
principle stages in this story: 1) the young man is not rich because of an unjust life. On the contrary, he is
rich and at the same time he also fulfils all the commandments: ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit
adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honour your father and your mother; and you
shall love your neighbours as yourself’. 2) The young man can only become perfect if he gives everything
to the poor, and then follows Jesus. Becoming perfect here has two phases: detaching himself from his
possessions and following Jesus as a disciple. 3) He became sad because the conditions for becoming
perfect would require him to abandon his possessions to which he attaches so much. 4) Jesus said that it is
hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.
The young man becomes sad, walking away. Is this be the beginning of his new life? If it were, his
life from then on would become harder than before. He becomes conscious of his decision to keep his
possessions. If he does not convert, his attitude will make it difficult for him to enter the kingdom. In
conclusion, the moral teaching of this story is not necessarily the abandonment of all one has, but
detachment from one’s possessions. In other words, detachment does not mean the abandonment of
possessions, but rather a freedom originating in independence from what one has.
3
J. MOLTMANN, The Spirit of Life, p. 132-133.
4
Cf. ibid., p. 133-138.
367
renounced their possessions and exercised compassion towards the poor (cf. Acts 4:32-
35).1
Up to this point, we have seen that the praxis of liberation theology relates to
political theology and the subject of political religion. Indeed, if liberation is to be
achieved now on earth, it needs contributions from civil governments as well as from all
people and the Church. Among the concrete praxes of liberation theology, Moltmann
discusses feminist theology and minjung theology thoroughly.
1.4. Feminist theology

I intend to situate ‘feminist theology’ within the section on ‘political theology’
and ‘liberation theology’ because I agree with E. Moltmann-Wendel that feminist
theology is an offshoot of liberation theology although that was not the intention of
liberation theology.2 Once we see that feminist theology is advanced by theologians who
want to liberate women from injustice and oppression3, we will also see that it arises from
within a church movement and has a liberation characteristic similar to liberation
theology. Indeed, one can rightly argue that feminist theology is very political, i.e. it
relates to political theology, insofar that it “brings to light, critically and publicly, the
everyday brutality and humiliation which takes place secretly in families and between
men and women.”4
Restoring to women their dignity and other positive aspects is only one dimension
of the purposes of feminist theology. Another dimension concerns what they can
contribute to the Church and society. Indeed, beginning from a positive perspective,
1
2
Moltmann says that feminist theology does not emerge from political theology (cf. J. MOLTMANN, God
for a Secular Society, p. 56). However, many other theologians, such as E. Moltmann-Wendel, D.
Williams, A M. Isasi-Diaz, see that it emanates from political theology (cf. E. MOLTMANN-WENDEL AND J.
MOLTMANN, God -His and Her, London: SCM Press, 1991, p. 17, trans. by John Bowden from the German
Als Frau und Mann von Gott reden,. Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1991; E. MOLTMANN-WENDEL,
Menschenrechte für die Frau, Munich : Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1974; D. WILLIAMS, Sisters in the Wilderness.
The Challenge of Womanist God-Talk, New York: Orbis Book, 1994; A. M. ISASI-DIAZ, Mujerista
Theology, New York: Orbis Book, 1996. However, Moltmann holds that the ‘new’ feminist theology is
considered as political theology because it is the feminist movement that promotes and fights for the
liberation of women from the patriarchal oppression politically supported by worldly social systems (cf. J.
MOLTMANN, “Teología política y teología de la liberación”, p. 497).
3
For E. Moltmann-Wendel, feminist theology is a concrete liberation theology because it liberates woman
“for herself, for her personality, for her particular situation” (E. MOLTMANN-WENDEL AND J. MOLTMANN,
God -His and Her, p. 17).
4
368
women do not ask what belong to them for themselves, but also about what and how they
can do for others. Women are not there for themselves, but also for others; therefore,
feminist theology has to take into account the rights of women to contribute to the
Church and society. How can the Church and society enable women to offer their talents,
gifts and other contributions?
1.4.1. Moltmann and feminist theology

Moltmann is married to Elizabeth Moltmann-Wendel who is a theologian, and,
particularly, a feminist theologian.1 Moltmann became acquainted with feminist theology
in associating and collaborating with E. Wendel since the early 50s of twentieth century,
when they attended the same university, Göttingen. Moltmann says that feminist theology
has engaged his theological reflection since 1972: “From 1972 onwards, feminist
theology became an important part of our conversation as man and wife, and in the
family, and - whether consciously or unconsciously - it influenced me deeply.”2
Whereas in feminist theology women theologize from feminine perspectives,
Moltmann does it from a masculine perspective: Since feminist theology entails the
element of liberating men as oppressors to the benefit of women,3 in contributing to
feminist theology, Moltmann has an advantage because he is talking subjectively for
himself as a man, while women speak from a feminist perspective. He will be able to
convey his experiences as to how to liberate men for the sake of women. Moltmann also
acknowledges that it has not been all that easy for him to do feminist theology because he
is a man and has been doing ‘male theology’ since early in his career. He says that since
feminist theology involves two conditions: separation from male theology, and separation
from male identity (which has its own concerns), he needs to change himself, make a
personal change, i.e., surrender prejudice (as a man).4
Moltmann does his feminist theology within his family life. He and his wife share
their community life, with division of labor. As a husband, a father of a family of four, a
1
For a bibliography of E. WENDEL’s feminist theology, see E. WENDEL AND J. MOLTMANN,
Menschenrechte für die Frau, Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1974; Frauenbefreiung - Biblische und
Theologische Argumente, Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1976; God: His and Hers, London: SCM Press,
1991.
2
3
Cf. ibid., p. 273.
4
Cf. ibid., p. 268-269.
369
professor and pastor, Moltmann has fulfilled his duties, although he admits that it was
difficult at times; being such a busy man also made Moltmann surrender some of his
power as a father. Other elements which help constitute his feminist theology are: his
encounter with Black theology, making him realize he is a white man; as well as his
encounter with Third World theologians, making him realize he comes from the First
World.1
Doing feminist theology requires awareness of both womanhood and manhood.
Moltmann has reflected on himself as a man as described above; then he attempts to see
the social and economic reality of women. Moltmann has made use of Scripture and read
it with the eyes of both woman and man. He finds that the emancipation movement for
women is supported by biblical teachings: Men and women “are created equal and are
endowed with certain inalienable rights.”2 Therefore, he concludes that man has no power
over woman: “From this, one precondition is essential: the power games must stop, the
master in the man must vanish, power must be distributed justly and equally, so that
everyone, men and women alike, get the chance to fulfill their talents and callings, so that
they can be used.”3
1.4.2. Origins of feminist theology

Feminist theology is associated with the feminist movements which took place
around the 1970’s, in the United States, for the liberation of women from patriarchal
oppression and for the rights of women in society. In this sense it is a cultural movement;
as Moltmann says: “The feminist theology of the present day sees itself as part of a
cultural revolution which aims to change an age-old human culture, and thinks of itself as
part of a liberation movement which aims to speak for the feminine part of humanity
today, and has to intervene on its behalf.”4
Moltmann comments further that “in North America, the women’s liberation
movement developed parallel to the civil rights movement. Feminist theology began as a
holistic theology, but soon took over its methods from liberation theology…and in the
1
Cf. ibid., p. 269-270.
2
Ibid., p. 271.
3
Ibidem.
4
Ibid., p. 274.
370
last ten years1 Latin America has developed a remarkable feminist liberation theology of
its own.”2 Mujerista theology wants to liberate women from being exploited
economically, politically and, particularly, culturally. From a social perspective, sexist
violence has been brought to light. “In addition to criticism of patriarchal images of God
(which can be found in the USA and Europe too), Latin American women have taken
over leading roles in the Christian base communities, and by so doing have called the
male priestly caste in question.”3
Therefore, with regard to the origin of feminist theology, we can say that it started
with the emancipation movement for white middle class women in the West, and then
took on the framework of liberation theology, seeking the liberation of all women of all
classes.
1.4.3. The nature of feminist theology

With regard to its nature, feminist theology has the manifold purpose of liberating
women from the oppression of the “patriarchy, masculine sexism, and the generally
androcentric character of our culture”4 which relates to the socio-political context, and
changing psycho-social attitudes, as well.
1.4.3.1. Origins and practices of patriarchy

Patriarchy, in the sexual and psychological sense, exists both in Europe and in
Asia, as well as in other parts of the world.
In the Far East, according to Confucian culture, a wife has to serve three men: her
father, her husband and her first son. This culture considers the male role of utmost
importance to family and society: through him the inheritance is transferred; he is
responsible for the ancestor cult; through males the family continues; men take care of
affairs in society, while women stay home.
According to ancient Roman patriarchy, the father of the family is the owner of
his wife and all who live in his household. Patriarchal culture has also been deeply rooted
1
Moltmann published his book God for a Secular Society in 1997, but we suppose that the feminist
liberation theology of South America had existed earlier than the decade of the 80s.
2
J. MOLTMANN, God for a Secular Society, p. 63-64.
3
Ibid., p. 64. It should be noted that, whether Latin American women really start to take leading roles in
Christian base communities is still in question because, in the patriarchal and machismo culture, fewer and
fewer men go to Church. In this sense, the leading roles in the Church cannot but be taken by women.
4
371
in Church life since its beginnings, which, in its turn, over the last two thousand years,
has further strengthened patriarchal culture in society. In this sense, the Church is not
innocent, for it “has supported, legitimated and given a religious overtone to colonialism
and racism, capitalism and sexism.”1
According to Moltmann, masculine sexism is a consequence of the delusion of
‘manliness’. Men “define humanity in terms of their masculinity, and through this
definition exclude women. Then the supremacy of the man over against the woman is
seen in his sexually active role, his supposed potency, and his life-long narcissism.”2
Seeing the masculine as superior to the feminine is the origin of men’s suppression of
women. Moltmann defines male sexism in these words:
By male sexism we understand the domination of the man over the woman on the
basis of privileges which the man sees as belonging to his masculinity, and which
ascribes to that. It is the masculine pride in his own sex, the preference given to
the particular characteristics of the male sex in culture, economy, politics and
religion, the conviction that these characteristics are fundamentally biological in
kind, and are therefore a matter of destiny. Along with this goes the belittling of
women as ‘the weaker sex’, the under-valuation in public life of allegedly
feminine characteristics, and the exclusion of women from full participation in the
public life of society.3
We can draw a few points from this definition: 1) Men recognize full human
characteristics only in the masculine, and feel women are not complete; they are ‘weak’.
2) Only men are capable of carrying out certain responsibilities considered quite
important and too hard for women; women can perform only the easier, less important or
less valued tasks. 3) Women are undervalued.
These misunderstandings cause men to judge women according to norms set up
by men. According to Moltmann, this justifies men in becoming aggressive towards
women. It becomes a culture of domination and submission: “Male feelings of superiority
then evoke feminine feelings of inferiority, so that the dependent women content
1
Cf. ibid., p. 274-275.
2
Ibid., p. 275.
3
Ibid., p. 275-276.
372
themselves with keeping a low profile and as victims are made to become accomplices in
the male delusion. Women then feel that they are men’s indispensable auxiliaries, or
‘helpmates’, or complements; and they adapt themselves.”1
According to Elizabeth Moltmann-Wendel, women are also responsible for the
endurance of the patriarchal culture. They are used to receiving care and support from
men and consider this as a just life style; they hang back and give themselves up; they
consider subordination to men as just sacrifice.2 E. Moltmann-Wendel encourages
women to liberate themselves in these words: “We need to trust ourselves again and we
must trust the renewing power of our experience of God. We must trust ourselves to
communicate life with all our senses and capacities and not give way to unyielding
structures nor keep on lapsing into false obedience in the face of authorities.”3 However,
the solution for patriarchy has to be tackled not only from the women’s side, but also
from the other side as well.
1.4.3.2. Liberation from patriarchy

According to Moltmann, feminist theology is also a theology for men; it is also
about “liberating the man from his master’s role.”4 Men have to “surrender the
superiority complex they have been trained to acquire and find their way to themselves in
their humanity.”5
Men need to know that masculine sexism also damages their human nature, for
they alienate themselves from their true being. A patriarchal man is split within himself:
reason and will on one side, as the subject; heart, feeling and needs, as the object, on the
other side. His heart, feeling and needs ask him to live another life, but he cannot do so
because he is forced to follow his reason and will which, under the influence of
patriarchal culture, has learned to control and suppress his heart and feeling. He has been
trained to be a father, a conqueror, a ruler, a soldier, a wage-earner, a worker. Because of
1
E. MOLTMANN-WENDEL and J. MOLTMANN, God - His and Her, p. 2; cf. J. MOLTMANN, Experiences in
Theology, p. 277.
2
Cf. Cf. E. MOLTMANN-WENDEL and J. MOLTMANN, God - His and Her, p. 11.
3
Ibid., p. 16.
4
5
Ibid., p. 277.
373
this split, he hates himself; he becomes aggressive; he wants to dominate women.1 He

searches “for security by way of control and repression.”2
Feminist theology is about liberation from the patriarchal culture that cultivates
and forms men from their childhood on. Boys are brought up in a way that makes them
feel they have to suppress girls; they have to become winners, conquerors, rulers, and
heads of family, etc. This is the way to be a man. He considers females as ‘the weaker
sex’; women should be housewives.3
Furthermore, patriarchy also originates with the idea of the supreme God who is
Lord of all. Man is supposed to emulate this God, and the consequence is that he (man)
“turns into a solitary individual, and becomes increasingly insensitive and unfeeling the
more powerful he becomes. He knows only self-love and the glory of what he has
achieved, and is aware that he is loved by no one; so the reverse side of his superhuman
pride is an inhuman anxiety.”4 According to Moltmann, in order for man to overcome this
patriarchal culture, it may be helpful to consider the Spirit of God as ‘our mother’. “If the
Holy Spirit is feminine, and acts like a mother, then human beings do not experience
themselves as subjects subordinate to an Almighty God but, like a child in its mother’s
arms, feel themselves in safe-keeping ‘in God’.”5
Women have to stand up and liberate themselves by casting away their inferiority
complexes and refusing to accept the roles men expect of them.6 They want “a new
society in which the powerful begin to listen to the powerless, in which the powerless
have possibilities of expressing and organizing themselves. They want a society in which
power is shared round and in which people learn to renounce power - for the sake of
justice.”7
When women are liberated from patriarchal and sexist oppression, men, too, are
liberated from their illusions of supremacy, and will be able to develop their human
qualities.8 “Men who want to discover life for themselves and then in community with
1
Cf. E. MOLTMANN-WENDEL and J. MOLTMANN, God - His and Her, p. 4-5.
2
3
Cf. ibid., p. 289.
4
Ibid., p. 290-291.
5
Ibid., p. 291; cf. E. MOLTMANN-WENDEL and J. MOLTMANN, God - His and Her, p. 8-9.
6
7
E. MOLTMANN-WENDEL and J. MOLTMANN, God - His and Her, p. 3.
8
374
women must shake off the pressure of patriarchy as a nightmare and do away with these
repressions of true life in order to be complete person.”1
Moltmann adds that in order for liberation from patriarchy to be successful, it
should be accompanied by “social and economic redistributions of rights and duties, i.e.
political and economic power, so that women and men can find more equal and juster
chances.”2
1.4.3.4. The Church and patriarchy3

Moltmann says that there are no theological arguments that can be made against
woman ordination and criticizes the Roman Catholic Church and some Orthodox bishops
for still bringing forward arguments. He points out two Church concepts that are wrong:
1) The monarchical ecclesiastical model that follows from the scheme: one God-one
Christ-one pope-one bishop-one Church and, accordingly, infers that man occupies the
monarchical role in the family; he receives a God-given leadership role in marriage with
women subordinate to him. 2) The Christocentric concept of the Church, which is
supported by Protestant theology, also generates a similar result, because Christ is the
head of the Church, so man is the head of the woman (cf. I Cor. 11). Both these two
concepts of the Church exclude women from occupying ‘spiritual offices’ in the Church.4
According to Moltmann, the Church needs to go back to the Pneumatological
concept that the early Church practiced. In the early Church, there is one Spirit and many
gifts; the Spirit of God was poured out on all flesh, and even women prophesied (cf. Joel
3: 1); Women were the first witnesses to the risen Lord and went to announce it to the
disciples. Unfortunately, women’s roles in the Church disappeared early on.5 Although
Moltmann argues that there is no sense in discussing this issue further because it has been
1
E. MOLTMANN-WENDEL and J. MOLTMANN, God - His and Her, p. 6.
2
3
If feminist theology wants to liberate the psycho-social culture, it has to liberate this culture among the
women of Asia, as Moltmann advocates, for they, under the influence of Oriental religions and cultures,
seem to voluntarily enjoy a ‘subjugated position’ to men. Furthermore, belief and attitudes of Christian
women in Asia are also supported by Scripture, which does not disdain service and subordinate roles in
family and society. Indeed, if white women in the First World want to liberate themselves from patriarchy
and women from Latin America and Africa want to liberate themselves from machismo, many women in
Asia do not yet see that they are oppressed by men, for they feel that subordination, in the context of
serving their husbands and children, is an honour. From this perspective, we can see that while feminist
theology has already flourished on other continents, it does not exist in Asia.
4
5
Cf. E. MOLTMANN-WENDEL and J. MOLTMANN, God - His and Her, p. 15.
375
decided, i.e. according to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, women cannot be
ordained,1 but in the light of the Pneumatological concept of the Church, he brings
forwards some foundations supporting women’s rights in the Church:
a) The image of God: Gen. 1:27 ‘God created man (human being) in his image…
male and female he created them’ means that “‘the human being’ becomes the image of
God in the plurality of men and women.”2 There is no ‘human being’ if there are not both
men and women, who are different but have equal rights and form one community of
human beings. Not only in the society, in the family, but also in the Church, there is the
community of men and women, in which men and women must be considered equal. In
other words, if we consider the Church as a community of men and women, it is
understandable that women are allowed to exercise all rights, duties and gifts men do.
b) New creation for both men and women: Men and women are called, justified
and sanctified by Jesus Christ. Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God to all, men and
women. He did not give privilege to men over women. Moltmann says: “They (women)
have equal rights before God and towards one another, and are not bound to the positions
assigned to them by the patriarchal rule of this world.”3
Furthermore, through the same baptism men and women become Christians; they
all are called, justified and sanctified by Jesus Christ; therefore, there is no distinction
between men and women in the Church. Many stories of Jesus’ acceptance of women,
communicating and relating to them, indicate that he restored women’s dignity and they
are renewed as the children of God. In Christ there is no more distinction between Jews
and Greeks, slaves and free people, male and female (cf. Gal. 3: 28).4 If Jesus
acknowledged these women’s dignity, so there should be a mutual recognition of all
members in the community of the Church. Moltmann says that this impartiality is
observed except when the issue of woman ordination is raised; then women are treated
unequally.5
1
Here Moltmann does not refer to any arguments of the Roman Catholic Church. As we know, the
Catholic Church bases its doctrine on tradition, i.e., women have never been ordained, and on what Jesus
did: calling twelve male apostles.
2
3
Ibid., p. 286.
4
Cf. E. MOLTMANN-WENDEL and J. MOLTMANN, God - His and Her, p. 1-3.
5
376
c) Many gifts and services but the same Spirit: The Holy Spirit is poured out on
all flesh, and sons and daughters shall prophesy (cf. Joel 2: 28-30; Acts 2; 17f.).
Therefore “all Christians must be regarded as having a ‘spiritual’ office (cf. I Peter 2: 9),
not just the ones who are called to special ministries.”1 The foundation of the ministries
of the Church has to be based on baptism, through which the gifts of the Holy Spirit are
poured out on all the baptized and the general priesthood is conferred on all. Invoking
this principle, the Church needs to go back to the pneumatological concept, which asserts
that “everyone concerned, whether man or woman, is endowed and committed through
his or her calling, wherever he or she is, and whatever he or she is. To be a woman is a
charisma, to be a man is a charisma, and the different charisma operate together for the
rebirth of life.”2
In agreement with Joel 2: 28-30, St. Paul says: “there are different kinds of
spiritual gifts but the same Spirit; there are different forms of services but the same Lord;
there are different workings but the same God who produces all of them in everyone” (I
Cor. 12:4-6). According to Moltmann, St. Paul wants to claim unity and diversity among
Christians, likeness and difference between men and women. “It is precisely not the
uniformity of the gifts which constitute their unity. The unity comes from the source of
their plurality.”3 Moltmann declares: “If God’s Spirit is ‘poured out on all flesh’, then
‘your sons and daughters will prophesy’. If ‘the daughters’ are prevented from doing so,
then God’s Spirit is hindered and injured, and the future of life will be hindered too.”4
Woman ordination is already the first step towards feminist liberation in the
Church, and those Churches that allow this to happen will have more chances of
renewing from among the Churches: “the re-formation and renewal process of the Church
which has begun with the ordination of women is going to change the face of the Church
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. XXII.
2
3
J. MOLTMANN, Experiences in Theology, p. 287; cf. The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. XXIII.
4
J. MOLTMANN, Experiences in Theology, p. 288. Moltmann indicates that this Pauline passage is the
foundation for woman ordination. But I judge that this is not what St. Paul intended, otherwise there would
be woman ordination since his time. What St. Paul wanted to say is that there are different gifts and there
are different vocations. Therefore, the question is that of finding out wether women can contribute fully
their gifts and talents without being ordained; just like men who are not ordained, they can contribute to the
Church and society according to their capacity. However, in principle one can argue that depriving women
of ordination is already an act of patriarchy.
377
fundamentally, from its image of God to its praxis.”1 However, Moltmann suspects that
even in Churches where women are already ordained, men are still running the Churches;
therefore, the further question arises whether ordained women really have freedom in
their roles.
He wants to explore further the extent to which women have been participating in
the Church’s leadership. Practically, there is a need for Church reform so that a
“disposition in the Church for full-time and voluntary workers, church councils and
pastors [must] be renewed in such a way that they reflect the priesthood of all believers
and give it life. A ‘redistribution of power’ determined by mutuality and justice is
necessary in a Church which has traditionally been led by men.”2 However, this
reformation can only occur if men and particularly those occupying Church offices are
ready to renounce their responsibilities, power and prestige for other people. This does
not mean that they will suffer a loss, but rather that they will gain their freedom and
liberation.3
Moltmann relates the situation of oppression in the Church to the context of
feminist theology: Because the Church practices patriarchy, as happens in many societies,
there are two sides to the victimization of oppression: the master as man and the slave as
woman. But in reality, both men and women suffer from this distortion. Both men and
women need to be aware of the real situation, requiring liberation. They need to
rediscover the freedom of Jesus and the energies of the Holy Spirit, who want a
community of both men and women on an equal footing in the Church.4
1.5. Minjung theology

“Minjung theology is the first liberation theology to come from Asia”5 and its
purpose is liberating the mass exploited and suffering class, addressing itself to the
dominant class as well the oppressed. ‘Minjung,’ in the Korean language, relates to the
1
Ibid., p. 284.
2
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. XXII-XXIII.
3
Cf. ibid., p. XXIII; cf. E. MOLTMANN-WENDEL and J. MOLTMANN, God - His and Her, p. 18-19.
4
Cf. ibid., p. 4-6.
5
378
Greek term ochlos , which means ‘the popular mass’. Ahn Byung-Mu,1 whose
Heidelberg dissertation on ‘Jesus and ochlos in the Gospel of Mark’ discovers the
intimate mutual relationship between Jesus and the ochlos, is one of the founders of
Minjung theology, which has inspired people to fight for the rights of underpaid and
exploited workers, as well as of the politically oppressed people of South Korea since the
1970s.2
Ochlos in the Gospel has a relational rather than social meaning. It refers to the
poor as dominated and subjugated by the rich; it means sinners where the Pharisees and
Scribes accused the sinners of being uneducated and unable to fulfill the Law; it means
the tax-collectors when they were disdained by the rest of the Jewish people.3
1.5.1. Jesus and the people (ochlos) in the New Testament

Traditional exegesis often pays attention to the contents of the teachings and acts
of Jesus, but ignores the relational aspects of his life, which in reality was in very close
relationship with the public. The Gospel of Mark shows that ‘the crowd’, ‘the many’, ‘the
people’ surrounded Jesus on every occasion. Moltmann comments that according to Ahn
Byung-Mu, “this crowd, ‘these many’, ‘this ‘ochlos’ are the main reason for Jesus’
coming and ministry.”4 Ahn Byung-Mu sees the ochlos of Mark’s Gospel as the people
of the condemned and alienated classes, including sinners, the poor, the sick, and the tax
collectors5, who followed Jesus and were accepted by him. Matthew also shows that the
crowd came to Jesus and “his heart was moved with pity for them because they were
1
Ahn Byung-Mu wrote his dissertation on ‘Jesus and ochlos in the Gospel of Mark’ at Heidelberg
university. A New Testament scholar and professor at Hankuk Theological Seminary in South Korea, he
also founded a Galilee Congregation for workers and critical intellectuals.
2
Cf. ibid., p. 248-252. For a comprehensive bibliography on Minjung theology, see AHN BYUNG-MU,
“Jesus and the Minjung in the Gospel of Mark”, in R. S. SUGIRTHARAJAH (ed.), Voices from the Margin:
Interpreting the Bible in the Third World, Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1991, p. 85-113; ANDREW SUNG PARK,
The Wounded Heart of God: The Asian Concept of Han and the Christian Doctrine of Sin, Nashville:
Abingdon, 1993; DAVID KWANG-SUN SUTH, The Korean Minjung in Christ, Hong Kong: Christian
Conference of Asia, 1991; JUNG YOUNG LEE (ed.), An Emerging Theology in World Perspective:
Commentary on Korean Mingjung Theology, Mystic, Conn.: Twenty-Third, 1988; JUNG YOUNG LEE,
Minjung Theology: People as Subjects of History, Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1981.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, Experiences in Theology, p. 255; J. MOLTMANN, The Open Church, p. 95.
4
5
The tax collectors, having collaborated with the Roman Empire, were not condemned by the powerful, but
condemned and alienated by the poor Jewish masses. In this sense, if the ochlos of Mark’s Gospel includes
tax collectors, then should ‘minjung’ not also include powerful people (particularly those in government)
who are condemned and alienated by the popular masses? In other words, ‘minjung’ should be inclusive,
not exclusive, of the upper class. If this interpretation is correct, the inclusive liberation understood by
Moltmann, i.e. liberation of the oppressors is relevant in Minjung theology.
379
troubled and abandoned, like sheep without a shepherd” (Mt. 9:36). They came drifting to
him in their suffering.1 In fact, very often, the poor and sick had the poorest living
conditions and so, naturally, had no means of keeping the Law of Israel; therefore, they
were regarded as sinners and excluded from Jewish society; “they are impoverished
country people, people of the land (ha’aretz), without property, as John 7 and 12 show,
people who are not economically in a position to keep the Law of Israel.”2 Jesus fed,
taught and healed these people (Mk. 7:14; 8:34; 5: 10; 1: 34f.; 6:56); he had mercy on
them and proclaimed the kingdom of God to them ( Mk. 6:34; 4:2f.). He came to serve
them, suffered and died for them (Mk. 10:45; 14:24).
Another aspect that shows Jesus’ identification with the people is his eating and
drinking with them. He did not set himself above them, but sat at the same table with the
sinners and tax collectors who were despised by other classes (cf. Lk. 15:2).3 The best
way of being one of the people and with the people is to sit at the same table with them.
For Jesus and the ochlos, no other sign of identification is better than this sharing at the
same table. Sitting at the same table shows that no one considers himself higher than
others, but all are of the same class.4
The essential purpose of Jesus’ communication with the ochlos is to proclaim the
kingdom to them. He did not teach them the Torah but the gospel of the kingdom. The
promises of Beatitudes are their blessings. Jesus accepted them as his family: “A crowd
seated around him told him, ‘your mother and your brothers [and your sisters] are outside
asking for you.’ But he said to them in reply, ‘Who are my mother and my brothers?’
And looking around at those seated in the circle he said, ‘Here are my mother and my
brothers. [For] whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother” (Mk.
3: 33-35).
Furthermore, Ahn Byung-Mu believes that because the Gospel of Mark was
written after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, Mark should have identified the ochlos with
1
2
3
Here we see that the ochlos does not include only the poor, the abandoned, the depressed or the
oppressed, but also the tax collectors, who were richer than the popular class. ‘Sinners’ and ‘tax collectors’
were often posed next to one another in the Gospels. Tax collectors were regarded as the rich and sinners
because they oppressed the poor in collecting taxes from them for the Romans and were paid for doing so;
Jesus did not exclude them, but associated and identified himself with them.
4
380
those scattered in the streets of Jerusalem; they were “the homeless, driven-out, scattered
people of his time who had been deprived of their rights, Jews and Christians. They
shared the fate of the poorest of the poor, the homeless and the displaced persons in the
Roman empire.”1
While Jesus considered the ochlos his brothers, sisters and mother, for their part,
the ochlos considered him as one in their midst. They did not consider him lord or master
who set himself above them and lived far away from them, but shared with them the
sufferings of life, to the point of death on the cross. Jesus belonged to the community of
the ‘poor’ and identified himself with the ochlos.2
According to Minjung theology, the image of the crucified Jesus reminds the
minjung, Christians and non-Christians of the solidarity of Jesus with them. According to
Moltmann, the minjung of the Third World can grasp the meaning of the suffering life of
Jesus easier than people of the First World, because they know that Jesus suffers with
them and for them: “The minjung understand him in his suffering because they feel that
they are understood by the suffering and dying Jesus.3 In the daily suffering and sacrifice
of the people the image of the crucified Jesus acquires a wholly different meaning from
the meaning it has in the lives of rich people in the First World.”4 The minjung, knowing
that Jesus is on their side, do not passively accept their fate, but feel they need to take
their destiny into their own hands; as Moltmann says: “The necessary liberation of the
minjung makes these people the subject of their own history. In this historical liberation
the people catch sight of their future in the kingdom of God.”5
1.5.2. Liberation of the ochlos.

In Minjung theology, besides the element of the ochlos already described, there
are other two important elements: ‘Han’ and ‘Dan’. ‘Han’ means anger or resentment;
1
2
With regard to the relationship Jesus had with people as an example for priests’ relationship with the
people of God, Vatican Council II also considers pastors as brothers of the people and equates the
relationship between pastors and the laity with that of the family (cf. Lumen Gentium, n. 32 and 37).
3
As I judge, Minjung theology is exclusively based on the suffering Jesus. It relates to liberation theology
of the cross. Looking at it from the perspective of the theology of hope, we can say that it lacks the aspect
of the coming Jesus, which is the goal of liberation. On the contrary, Minjung theology focuses too much
on the present and ignores the focal point of the future Moltmann’s theology of hope proposes (Moltmann
does not seem to realize this).
4
5
Ibid., p. 258.
381
while ‘Dan’ signifies disconnecting, separating or cutting off. According to Minjung

theology, when suffering a prolonged, unjust oppression, the minjung are weighted down
by ‘han’ and become depressive and acquiescent; they become resentful and indignant at
the oppressors and angry with themselves for allowing themselves to be oppressed.
Liberating the minjung requires ‘Dan’. They need to cut themselves off from material
wealth and comfort, i.e. a practice of self-denial.1 This practice is reinforced by a fourfold
practice of positive approach: “realizing God’s presence in us and worshiping Him,
allowing this consciousness to grow in us, practicing what we believe, and overcoming
the injustices by transforming the world.”2
One of the characteristics of Minjung theology is that people belong to the
kingdom of God, and Jesus identifies himself with the minjung: ‘As you did it to one of
the least of these my brethren, you did it to me’(Matt. 25:40) and ‘Whoever receives one
child such as this in my name receives me’(Matt. 18:5). With the phrase ‘He who hears
you hears me’(Lk. 10:16), Minjung theology understands that the Church has a mission
of offering the basic needs to the least of Jesus’ brethren. Jesus identifies himself with
both the ochlos and his disciples, who fulfill the mission in the name of the Church.3 ‘Ubi
Christus ibi ecclesia’ must be applied here; because Jesus is with all his brethren,
including the least among them, the Church has to be with them too. Furthermore, the
‘poor’ form the latent community of Christ and Christ is there in their midst; therefore,
the Church has to include the ‘poor’ in the Church community. Jesus expects the Church
not only to feed the poor, but also to make them brothers and sisters in the kingdom. The
ochlos are not the objects of the Church’s charity as often thought, but the subjects in the
community of the people of God.4 Moltmann says that “if the minjung congregations
stand beside the minjung in their pain, they stand ‘beside God in his suffering’. But they
do not stand there in order to bear sins for the reconciliation of the world, but so as to rise
1
The practice of ‘cutting oneself off from material wealth and comfort (a practice of self-denial)’ seems to
be influenced by oriental and Buddhist culture in Asia.
2
PETER C. PHAN, “Kingdom of God: A Theological Symbol for Asians?” in Gregorianum 79, 2, 1998, p.
295-322, at 305; JUNG YOUNG LEE (ed.), An Emerging Theology in World Perspective: Commentary on
Korean Mingjung Theology, p. 10-11. In my opinion, in Minjung theology, the process of liberation will
not be achieved unless it entails a liberation of the oppressors, as proposed by Moltmann in liberation
theology.
3
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, Experiences in Theology, p. 256-257, 266-267; The Open Church, p. 105.
382
up with the minjung into liberty of a juster world, in which the pain of the people no
longer exists.”1
What can the ochlos do for others, particularly for their oppressors? Isaiah 53
talks about the suffering servant of God, a servant who suffers for people. According to
Ahn Byung-Mu, this suffering servant is a collective entity, the ochlos. Moltmann was
astonished when Ahn said that it is the minjung who bear the sins of the world. Moltmann
disagrees with Ahn and holds that Isaiah 53 talks about a divine figure. The oppressed or
the suffering people cannot produce redemptive merits for the rich or people of the First
World; only God can take away the sins of the world.2
2. THE CHURCH OF HOPE AND LIBERATION

‘The Church’s possession of a political dimension’ does not mean the Church is
politicized within itself, but means that the Church should get involved in the world and
change it in view of the coming kingdom of God; it does not mean that the Church equals
politics. The Church is political when it liberates itself from being apolitical and engages
in liberating the world from the bondage of exploitation, oppression, dictatorship,
racialism and the compulsion of sin. Because the Church has an eschatological hope, it
cannot be apolitical.3
Indeed, if the Church of Jesus Christ is a Church that only submits itself to the
Lordship of Christ, it practices political theology when it denies the state’s control or
when it liberates laymen from the dominion of clergymen and stimulates them to get
involved in the mission of the Church. The Church is also political when the
denominational Churches liberate themselves from the boundaries of their own tradition
and interests and work for the unity of the Church of Christ.
The Church, therefore, is a political Church, which has to be involved in politics.
This is the mission of the Church. It cannot avoid participating in the liberation of man
and humankind from oppression due to economic, political and religious welfare.
Furthermore, the political aspect of the Church is founded on the lordship of Christ who
1
J. MOLTMANN, Experiences in Theology, p. 261. Because the original purpose of Minjung theology does
not comprise a liberation of the laity from the hierarchical Church, but only a liberation of the people
oppressed in cultural, socio-political dimensions, I reserve the discussion of the liberation of the people
within the Church for the section ‘the people of God’, below.
2
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, Experiences in Theology, p. 258-259, 295-296.
3
383
frees men from all evils; his kingdom is already present and embraces all temporal goods.
“In the resurrection of Christ, the ultimate boundary of freedom, the boundary of death, is
broken through. A Church which lives from this breakthrough can no longer recognize
the boundaries of death’s rule in economic, political and cultural life. Rather it seeks to
overcome the deadening powers of the negative in these dimensions of life.”1 What
liberation theology brings about is freedom in the fullest sense. This freedom is freedom
for both the Church and the world; it is “freedom for the fellowship with God, man and
nature.”2
2.1. A Church of Liberation

Since the birth of political theology and liberation theology, people have expected
the Church to get involved more actively in worldwide struggles for justice. However,
there still seems to be little sign of concrete result in terms of liberation. This disappoints
certain people. Moltmann feels that this is because the Church is not yet liberated from
particular social classes, the ruling classes, races and nations; the Church cannot yet
become a Church of liberation.3 In this sense, when talking about the Church of
liberation, there is movement in two directions: Jesus liberated the Church and the
Church liberates the world. I should note that the topic ‘reformata and reformanda’ in the
chapter ‘the holiness of the Church’ is related to the topic ‘liberated Church’; both
discuss Church life.4 Having no intention of repeating what was already said in
‘reformata and reformanda’, in this section, I will study two further aspects, from the
liberation perspective: ‘the liberated Church’ and ‘the Church liberates the world’. We
say that the Church is the Church of liberation in two senses: It is the fellowship of those
who are liberated by Christ, and, secondly, Christ empowers the Church and its members
to liberate the world.
2.1.1. A liberated Church

By ‘the Church of liberation’ we mean first of all the liberated Church. Jesus
Christ liberates the Church from within; it is also liberated from society and worldly
1
2
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Liberation in the Light of Hope”, p. 422.
4
See this theses, p. 98-102.
384
authorities. The Church is the Church of Christ, for its members are those who obtain
freedom through the saving liberation of Jesus Christ.
The liberated Church lives under the liberating rule of Christ who sets free all its
members. In order to live as the liberated Church of Jesus Christ, it has first of all to
maintain its freedom; it must continue to liberate itself from within. Within the Church
‘there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male
and female’ (Gal. 3: 28). “In the Church of Christ the religious, economic and sexual
privileges that obtain in the world around lose their force.”1
Because Jesus already frees the Church and all its members, the Church should
maintain this freedom within the Church: In the liberated Church, there will be no
distinction of race, class, and nation; there will be no religious, economic or sexual
privilege. But all members are equal, thanks to baptism and ‘the priesthood of all
believers’. In this Church only the liberating lordship of Jesus Christ rules.2 In this sense
the Church is “the council of believers or the synod, the common way, of the liberated.”3
The fact that all members of the Church are equal is, at the same time, grounded
on the same saving grace, rights and dignity granted by Jesus, and also on their diverse
gifts and identity. In this sense, both liberty and equality are fruits of the liberating
lordship of Jesus Christ. In this context, the liberated Church has to be on guard lest it let
power structures and divisions in society penetrate it. On the contrary, the Church should
give witness to society through its liberation of ecclesiastical and social life. Moltmann
says: “Basically, all Christians participate in the kingly service of the Son of man and are
witnesses of his liberating rule in their ecclesiastical life, as well as in their social one.
The kingdom of all believers sets its stamp on the life of Christ’s Church, both inward
and outward… Liberation for fellowship is experienced in the Church, and fellowship for
the liberation of the world is practiced through it.”4
1
J. MOLTMANN, “Liberation in the Light of Hope”, p. 422; cf. The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p.
106.
2
Cf. ibid., p. 106-107.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Liberation in the light of hope”, p. 422; The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 106.
4
Ibid., p.108.
385
2.1.2. Political and liberation theology under the cross

The Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53 shows that in suffering Jesus reconciles men
with God and brings them justice and freedom. Reconciliation, justice and freedom do
not involve just the spiritual but also the existential dimensions of the people’s lives.
Those who accept the crucified Jesus Christ as their savior experience even now the
righteousness He brings about through his cross: “If Christianity takes its understanding
of itself from the cross of Christ, then it lives from the experience of the new
righteousness proclaimed by Jesus (Rom. 1: 17) and revealed to the godless in his death.
The new righteousness of God is manifested in the ‘godless’ death of the Son of God, and
with it the outcasts are accepted, the unrighteous are made righteous and justice is
secured for those without rights. That is the new divine righteousness revealed in the
gospel.”1
Christian theology often interprets the death of Jesus only from a soteriological
perspective: Jesus died and was raised in order to free people from the bondage of laws
and the works of laws. Now man becomes righteous because he has faith in Jesus Christ.
This theological understanding lacks a political dimension.
The meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ must also have a
political significance: his death was the death of a political offender; for political leaders,
Jesus was attracting the masses of a poor population that could threaten the stability of
civil authority; that was the reason for his condemnation. But the consequences of
politically theological interpretation of his death has great influence on Christian life -
which political theology wants to explore: If the crucifixion was considered a dishonor
and shame, and if the shamed and dishonored Jesus rose from the dead, then the public
understand that God is on the side of the lowly. The lowly in society will be exalted as in
the case of Jesus, for “the authority of God is then no longer represented directly by those
in high positions, the powerful and the rich, but by the outcast Son of Man, who died
between two wretches. The rule and the kingdom of God are no longer reflected in
political rule and world kingdom, but in the service of Christ, who humiliated himself to
the point of death on the cross.”2
1
Ibid., p. 88; cf. The Spirit of Life, p. 129-131.
2
386
In this sense, a political understanding of the cross should impel the Church to get
involved in politics, as well as liberation movements. It is under the cross of Jesus Christ
that the Church fulfills its mission and suffers persecution. If Jesus was crucified in order
to justify and liberate Christians, Christians and the Church too should let themselves be
crucified with Christ by conducting a life of faith (cf. Gal. 2:19-20): “The more it (the
Church) brings the Gospel to the poor, liberation to the imprisoned and sight to the blind,
the more it will be involved in His destiny and become a Church under the cross. It will
encounter misunderstanding, opposition and, finally, persecution. Whoever helps the lost
must reckon with becoming lost himself. Yet one will recognize the true Church of Christ
from the powers of liberation which are alive in it and which proceed from it, and often
enough also from the signs of the cross which must bear because of its resistance.”1
In practice, according to the new political theology, today political rule has to be
judged ‘from below’ by citizens of the Church and state. This new political theology
draws from the example of the practice of the early Church in wanting to replace the cult
of the Empire with prayers for the emperor to show the emperor is not absolute but needs
his citizens’ prayers. The new political theology disapproves of a political religion which
reduces religions to politics, but advocates the course of relativism, one the Middle Ages
and the Reformation period practiced in relativizing “political ordinances so that they
became necessary ordinances in the world, which served the well-being of people but not
their (own) salvation”2 The Church has to avoid both private idolatry and political
idolatry.3 Instead, it has to take its characteristics from the crucified God, who is stateless
and classless, political and public. “He is the God of the poor, the oppressed and the
humiliated. The rule of the Christ who was crucified for political reasons can only be
extended through liberation from forms of rule which make men servile and apathetic and
the political religions which give them stability.”4
Moltmann asserts further that Christians, in the understanding of the political
theology of the cross will necessarily seek “to anticipate the future of Christ according to
the measure of the possibilities available to them, by breaking down lordship and
1
2
3
It means that Christian life and religion cannot become solely a private affair or exclusively politics
without spiritual dimension.
4
387
building up the political liveliness of each individual.”1 The crucified Jesus is the source
of liberation for Christians and the Church, and the strength for them to go out into the
world to bring the hope of liberation to it and get involved in the actual praxis of
liberation in the world: “In Him, the crucified one, the world of death is already
overcome and the invincible life has already appeared. A Church which is grasped by this
resurrected liberator is reborn and sent into the dying world with a living hope.”2 Indeed,
the cross of Jesus Christ produces an effect that comprises the universal dimension, i.e.
the liberation for all creatures. The purpose of God’s reconciliation with us in the
Crucified Christ is both for us and for the rest of creation through our lives. Therefore, we
cannot reserve liberation for ourselves, but should “break out of our Churches and out of
the anxious egoism of our nations and develop a new piety of solidarity with all the
damned of this earth.”3
“According to Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici Corporis of 29 June 1943, the Church
is Christus prolongatus and alter Christus - ‘the prolongation of Christ’ and ‘the other
Christ’. So if the real presence of Christ is to be found in the poor, if he shares their fate
and they share his, then they too are ‘alter Christi persona’.”4 But Christus is the
crucified Christ. In this sense, if the Church is Christus prolongatus and alter Christus,
the Church “is then nothing less than the historical prolongation of the suffering servant
of God. That is then another collective interpretation of the ‘suffering servant’ of Isaiah
53… ‘The crucified people’ then becomes the ‘light-bringer and bearer of salvation’ and
in these functions assumes the position of the true Church” 5
Realizing that through his cross, Jesus Christ liberates the world from injustice
and suppression, the Church and Christians consider the crucified Christ as the center of
their praxis of liberation. They have to draw their strength from Him and follow His
example of suffering for others. St. Paul says: ‘That is, God was in Christ reconciling the
world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the
message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ’ (II Cor. 5:10-20). Therefore
we are entrusted to “invite all men to the place of the poor, suffering, and dying Christ for
1
Ibidem.
2
3
J. MOLTMANN, The Gospel of Liberation, Waco -Texas: Word Incorporated, 1973, p. 88.
4
J. MOLTMANN, Experiences in Theology, p. 236; cf. Col. 1:24.
5
Ibid., p. 235-236.
388
reconciliation with God, to their new future, to freedom, to peace, and to righteousness.
His cross is the symbol of hope for this earth.”1 Moltmann says that the experience of
being liberated by the crucified Christ will necessarily stimulate Christians to suffer for
others in order to obtain freedom: “Whoever experiences liberation from anxiety by faith
in the Crucified begins to suffer in the inhuman pressure of this anxiety. Whoever follows
after the person who is crucified by the idols and powers of this world becomes ready
also to be an iconoclast of freedom against those gods and cults of his society.”2
2.1.3. People of God

Moltmann says that in the Church, the term ‘laity’ has to be restored to signifying
the people of God in the sense of the ochlos described in the Gospel of St. Mark and the
laos in the New Testament. Ochlos is the people of God with whom Jesus has a close
relationship, identifying himself with them. The New Testament also speaks of laos as
meaning ‘the people of God’, including all people.
Therefore, in the Church there should be no distinction between clergy and laity
(the word ‘laity’ comes from laos). When ‘laity’, appears next to ‘clergy’, it means the
ignorant and incompetent; this is unjust; it is wrong to interpret the term ‘laos - the
people of God’ as meaning the second class in the Church, after the clergy. When we
distinguish clergy from laity, we intend that the Church be hierarchical and governed
from above downward. When there is a distinction between clergy and laity in the
Church, as nowadays, “in the eyes of the people the rulers (clergy) and the ruling class do
not belong to the people. One regards them with fear and mistrust.”3 When there is a
hierarchy in the Church, pastors feel that they are above the people and are there to serve
people; the Church is a Church for people. On the contrary, now the Church must be a
Church of the people; in the Church all are equal. Only with the Church of the people, are
people subjects of the Church; they feel they belong to the Church and go to Church.4
The Church should not remain a Church for the people, but has to reform itself
into a Church of the people and with the people; the pastor has to be with the people, as
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Gospel of Liberation, p. 78.
2
Ibid., p. 83
3
J. MOLTMANN, The Open Church, p. 99. Vatican Council II also says: “The ministerial priest, by the
sacred power that he has, forms and rules the priestly people” (Lumen Gentium, 10).
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, Experiences in Theology, p. 265-266; The Open Church, p. 98-99.
389
one of them. There has been a separation and distance between the Church, the pastor and
the people. If the Church and pastors want to bring hope to the people, they have to be as
one of them and struggle with them. One can become one of the people, the ochlos, only
if he/she is truly poor, hungry, suffering, etc. like one of them; presence alone is not
enough.1
However, there is a new understanding of ‘the people’: because ochlos and laos
include all people, in the people of God there is no distinction of class, language or race;
but one can find a common and collective identity in the people; they have the same
exigency, a common struggle and identical hope. People belonging to the same religion
are bound together despite nationality or language, etc. Furthermore, the ‘people of God’
should not separate themselves from ‘the people’ of the world. The people of God have to
look beyond their religious identity and reach out to all people.
Thus, the ochlos of the New Testament is not limited only to Jews, but includes
all people of all ages.2 Therefore, liberation theology has to reach beyond the boundaries
of Christianity, and when it does so it will bring justice, peace and integrity to all people
without distinction of religions, culture or background. Those who are liberated will not
be required to change their religions; they have freedom to retain their heritage, for the
kingdom of God is universal and the liberated people of God will exclude nobody.3
2.2. The Church helps liberate the unjust world

If Jesus Christ has already liberated the Church, the Church is empowered to
contribute to the transformation of the world not only in word but also in deed. The
1
Cf. ibid., p. 96-97. Vatican Council II, in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, states that pastors in
the Church acknowledge that they alone are unable to accomplish the Church’s mission, but the people of
God, as laity, can contribute to the best of their ability to the welfare of the Church, according to their
charisms. The laity is also charged with engagement in temporal affairs (cf. Lumen Gentium, n. 30-31).
“There is a common dignity of members deriving from their rebirth in Christ… In Christ and in the Church
there is, then, no inequality arising from race or nationality, social condition or sex” (n. 32). The Council
stresses further the importance both of varied ministries and equality among all members of the people of
God: “Although by Christ’s will some are established as teachers, dispensers of the mysteries and pastors
for the others, there remains, nevertheless, a true equality between all with regard to the dignity and to the
activity which is common to all the faithful in the building up of the Body of Christ”(n. 32). The Council
also says that the laity can be called to cooperate with the hierarchy and be appointed to the same
ecclesiastical offices (cf. n. 33). “By reason of the knowledge, competence or pre-eminence which they
have the laity are empowered - indeed sometimes obliged - to manifest their opinion on those things which
pertain to the good of the Church” (n. 37).
2
J. MOLTMANN, The Open Church, p. 100-101.
3
390
Church is liberated in order to be able to liberate the world. This is the mission of the
Church. Indeed, ‘“not to be conformed to this world’ does not mean merely to be
transformed in oneself, but to transform in opposition and creative expectation the face of
the world in the midst of which one believes, hopes and loves.”1
The Church engages itself in the socio-political life of society, trying to help
improve people’s living conditions, fostering peace and harmony for the community of
creatures: “The Church is the fellowship of those who owe their new life and hope to the
activity of the risen Christ. The use of its new freedom in this world ought to correspond
to the rule of Christ and to reflect this physically and politically… In its concrete form it
(the Church) corresponds to its social environment and reflects the conditions which
govern the society in which it lives”2 When there is conflict between the certain living
conditions in the world and the guidance of the Gospel and where there is disharmony,
estrangement and disintegration within human community, the Church has to assert its
faith in the promises of the Beatitudes.3 Moltmann sympathizes with those criticizing the
Church for conforming and corresponding to civil governments instead of Christ. On the
contrary, “the Church must first of all reflect and represent the lordship of Christ in itself.
It cannot adopt its social order from the way in which the society in which it lives is run,
or allow its social order to be determined by that; for it has to correspond to its Lord and
to represent new life for society.”4
The Church of the righteous, living in the righteousness of Christ, will not
conform to the world governed by the laws of the unrighteous, but has to take a new
stand founded on the righteousness of God who forgives the world and makes it new.5 A
newly justified believer “cannot try to improve the previous systems of life on the basis
of the law, but will spread the new righteousness of the gospel in their midst, the new
righteousness which serves the new creation of all things. He can no longer adapt himself
to the pattern of this world, but will change and renew his aspiration, seeking after the
living will of God towards new creation (Rom. 12: 2).”6
1
2
3
4
5
Cf. ibid., p. 88-89.
6
Ibid., p. 89.
391
Sin is considered unrighteousness caused by imbalance and discord between men

and God, men and nature, and men with one another. In mediating accord and harmony,
the Church prepares the ground for the hope of righteousness. The grounds for the hope
of righteousness are both within the Church and outside the Church. Within the Church,
there is an opportunity for communion and reconciliation. In the world, the Church
creates and fosters an environment of justice, peace, and love.
The Church is an instrument of the justice of God. The more the Church and its
members believe in the justice of God, the more they will engage in economic, political
and social conflict. They are liable to suffer the tension of a life torn between injustice, on
the one hand, and justice on the other. They are responsible for recreating the future
world of justice. If the Church has the experience of peace in God, who also promises
peace for the world, it, in its faith, will respond to the justice of God. With its thoughts,
words, works, and hope, the Church will answer to the hope of the world. While faith
receives the peace of God, hope anticipates a new world of peace. If faith finds
consolation in every unjust situation, hope anticipates the future of a new creation where
there will be no suffering and injustice.1
The foundation for the promotion of justice is biblical and Christocentric. Saint
Paul teaches that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person,
there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). This
biblical teaching means that there should be no more cultural, political, economic, and
social repression. As Christians, we have the mission of bringing peace and justice to the
world. Rm. 4: 2 calls us to bring about justice as Jesus did. In Col. 1: 19-20, we are
invited to bring not only peace to humanity but also reconciliation to all creatures as
Jesus has reconciled to himself and to God all that is in heaven and on earth. Since
Christians have received justice, reconciliation and peace from God, they cannot be
indifferent towards the problems they see. They have responsibility for others and will be
judged by their responses. The foundation for this responsibility is that we have faith in
God and with this faith we experience peace, which awakens in us hope for the earth.
With faith we receive peace from God; with hope we anticipate a new world of peace.
We live not only in present but also for the future. We have faith and hope now, and we
1
392
conform our present life to the promised future: “If Christ ‘was raised again for our
justification’ (Rom. 4:25), then the saving significance of his resurrection must be given
its due weight too. The forgiveness of sins is backward-looking act. The forward-looking
act of justification is the new creation of life, the awakening of love, and the rebirth to a
living hope.” 1
Until the accomplishment of the kingdom of God is complete, man will have to
struggle with contradiction, for he wants to seek righteousness within the partly
unrighteous world. This is the eschatological characteristic of hope. “The promised
divine righteousness sets us on a path whose tension and whose goal it announces…
Divine righteousness is not merely a gift that has been made manifest, but means also the
power of the Giver which is at work in the life of the believer. That is why the man who
is justified begins to suffer under the contradiction of this world.”2 “Christians must
venture an exodus and regard their social role as a new Babylonian exile.”3
Because the Church hopes for the righteousness brought by Jesus, it helps bring
love, new life and a living hope to the world by proclaiming Jesus’ event of obedience
even unto death on the cross and his resurrection, as well as righteousness for all those
who trust in him. This is a hope in what is coming, or rather it is a hope of obtaining what
is promised by God, which will certainly take place, for God is righteous in being faithful
to his covenant.
3. THE CHURCH IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD

The twenty-first century and the following centuries are under threat of crime
against humanity, mass annihilation and even destruction of the planet, and at the same
time are we encouraged by the awareness of people who are concerned about their future
and the future of the earth. People want to affirm life and press for the survival of the
earth and humanity. Moltmann says: “I find such an affirmation of life and such courage
to be in the power of the resurrection, which lives from the remembrance of the crucified
Christ and awaits the annihilation of death and the ‘life of the world to come’. The power
1
2
J. MOLTMANN, Theology of Hope, p. 206; cf. Rom. 5: 21; 6: 13; 10: 3; II Cor. 3: 9.
3
393
of the resurrection shows itself in the ‘anticipation of God’s kingdom, showing

something of the newness which Christ will complete, and in the consolations which
support us through suffering, so that we are preserved and do not have to give up.”1
Since the 20th century, there has been emphasis on the positive transformation of
all creatures as objects of hope. This new direction towards temporal realities as the
object of hope is partially a result of the reinterpretation and discovery of the meaning of
the kingdom of God, which was announced and promised by Jesus and is already present.
Indeed, the kingdom of God is not an otherworldly reality but consists of the whole
history of humanity and creation. “Thus it becomes evident that in the preaching of Jesus,
the object of hope is not simply God on the other side of death. Rather, the object of hope
is the coming reign of God, in which all creation will be brought into harmony and
human society will be fully reconciled to God.”2
Bauckham interprets Moltmann’s theology of the Kingdom of God as not a
kingdom of temporary possibilities that human beings may construct and project, but as a
kingdom that belongs to God - who alone is sovereign: “Moltmann insists that the
Kingdom of God […] must be understood as the lordship of the God who raises the dead,
and therefore not a kingdom which can arise from the immanent possibilities of the
process or which can be reduced to a kingdom without God.”3 Here is what Moltmann
says: “The sole Lord of the kingdom is the God ‘who has raised Jesus from the dead’ and
therein shows himself to be the creator ex nihilo. His kingdom can then no longer be seen
in a historic transformation of the godless state of man and the world.”4
3.1. The Trinitarian doctrine of the kingdom

There is a similarity between the Trinitarian doctrine of the kingdom Moltmann
presents and Joachim of Fiore’s doctrine of the kingdom, in terms of their format.5
1
J. MOLTMANN, “Resurrection: The Ground, Power and Goal of our Hope”, p. 86-87.
2
M. K. HELLWIG, Hope, p. 512.
3
R. BAUCKHAM, Moltmann Messianic Theology in the Making, p. 20.
4
5
Cf. JOACHIM DE FIORE, Concordia Novi ac Veteris Testamenti, Venice, 1519 (reprinted Frankfurt:
Minerva, 1964); Expositio in Apocalypsim, Venice, 1527 (reprinted Krankfurt: Minerva, 1964); H.
GRUNDMANN, Studien über Joachim von Floris, Leipzig: Teubner, 1927; H. MOTTU, La manifestation de
l’Esprit selon Joachim de Fiore, Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé Neuchâtel, 1977.
394
Joachim, following Cappadocian theologians, distinguishes three kingdoms: the

kingdom of the Father, the kingdom of the Son and the kingdom of the Spirit, and he
identifies the seventh day of world history with the kingdom of the Spirit. In fact, the
Cappadocian theologians imagined only one kingdom of God but displaying “the
separate impress of Father, Son and Spirit, each in his own way… But the subject of
sovereignty changes from the Father to the Son and to the Spirit.”1 According to Joachim,
there are three stages of the kingdom: the Father created his kingdom and preserves it
through his power and providence; the Son redeemed people in his kingdom through the
proclamation of the gospel and the Church’s administration of the sacraments; the Holy
Spirit renews people in the kingdom. In the kingdom of the Spirit, which is the ‘eternal
Sabbath’, people belong to the charismatic community.2
Moltmann presents the Trinitarian doctrine of the kingdom as following:
1) The kingdom of the Father is the created world which is open to the future. The
created world has the potentiality of becoming perfect. It is a regnum naturae or regnum
potentiae, creatio continua and creatio nova. God created the world in his providence,
but this providence entails the world’s projecting towards its future: “The interpretation
of providence must be expanded correspondingly: providence and the general
government of God does not merely mean the continuing preservation of creation from
destruction. It also means that God keeps the world’s true future open for it through the
gift of time, which works against all the world’s tendencies to close in on itself, to shut
itself off.”3 In the kingdom of the Father, men and women are God’s property; they are
the servants of God for His glory. This is their privilege, for being God’s servants people
are free from other powers. They dwell in the house of the Lord, caring for his property.
2) The kingdom of the Son is the kingdom in which men and women are liberated
and live under the lordship of Jesus Christ. They live in the liberty of children of God and
march towards the kingdom of glory. Jesus Christ reigns in his kingdom because he frees
his people from the bondage of slavery of sin and injustice.4 In the kingdom of the Son,
1
J. MOLTMANN, Trinity and the Kingdom of God, p. 204.
2
Cf. ibid., p. 204-205. Moltmann condemns Joachim of Fiore’s doctrine of the kingdom for dividing the
history of the kingdom into three chronological eras (cf. J. MOLTMANN, Trinity and the Kingdom of God, p.
203, 209, 221).
3
Cf. ibid., p. 209.
4
Ibid., p. 210-211.
395
the servants of God become God’s children through the liberating and saving grace of
Jesus Christ. “Knowledge of the Father and free access to him are the characteristics
which place the freedom of God’s children above the freedom of his servants… They are
not the Father’s property. On the contrary, they are joint owners of the Father’s property.
They are his heirs.”1 Furthermore, as just mentioned, if in the kingdom of the Father each
servant has a relationship with God independently and as servants do not have a real
relationship with one another, in the kingdom of the Son, children of God are bound
together by heredity; they are brothers and sisters.2
3) In the kingdom of the Spirit, people experience the ‘gifts of the Spirit’, which
energize them to live a Christian life of witness and in a community of joy. They also
anticipate the kingdom of glory. “It [the kingdom of the Spirit] presupposes the kingdom
of the Father and the kingdom of the Son and, together with the kingdom of the Father
and the kingdom of the Son, points in its own way towards the eschatological kingdom of
glory. Finally, the kingdom of glory must be understood as the consummation of the
Father’s creation, as the universal establishment of the Son’s liberation, and as the
fulfillment of the Spirit’s indwelling.”3 In the kingdom of the Spirit, the children of God
become God’s friends: “No longer do I call you servants, for the servant do not know
what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my
father I have made known to you” (John 15:15). As God’s friends, people enjoy talking
to God with the confidence of friends and God listens to them with respect. Moltmann
summarizes: “In obeying God’s command a person feels himself to be the Lord’s servant.
In faith in the Gospel he sees himself as being the child of his heavenly Father. As God’s
friend he talks to God in prayer, and his prayer becomes a conversation with his heavenly
friend.”4
3.2. God’s lordship in the universal kingdom

The kingdom of God should be understood in the context of the universal lordship
of Jesus Christ. In the kingdom, all that exists, whether human beings, other living
1
Ibid., p. 219-220.
2
Cf. ibid., p. 220.
3
Ibid., p. 112.
4
Ibid., p. 220-221.
396
creatures or the rest of nature, in the past, present and future in the world, are under his
lordship.
The basis for the universal characteristic of the kingdom is God’s glorification.
God’s glorification is his self-giving, in which and through which man’s salvation and his
likeness to God are accomplished, as well as the peace of creation being preserved.1 All
that God created is good; angels, men, all living creatures and the rest of nature should
and can give glory to God.
Another basis for the universal characteristic of the kingdom is man’s
resemblance to God in four fundamental dimensions: his relationship with God, his
relationship to himself, his social relationship, and his relationship with the rest of
creatures. “In virtue of man’s resemblance with God, individual eschatology cannot be
dissolved in the social eschatology, and human eschatology cannot be dissolved in the
cosmic eschatology, although, by this determination, individual has relationship with the
community and humanity with the nature.”2 With these relationships, there is peace and
harmony among creatures as well as between creatures and God.
The kingdom of God is of both future and present. It is not right to limit its
existence to only one of these two realities. In the coming kingdom, there will be
resurrection, justice, peace and no more suffering and death. But this coming kingdom
has already been inaugurated by Jesus, and the signs of its presence now are that ‘the
blind regain their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are
raised, and the poor have the good news proclaimed to them’ (Mt. 11:5).3
The kingdom of God does not only mean a kingdom in its fullness beyond this
temporal world, but it is already present now. We have to understand the kingdom of God
in its entirety: both present and future. “This understanding forbids us to banish the
lordship of God to a future world totally unrelated to our earthly, historical life. But it
also forbids us to identify the kingdom of God with conditions in history, whether they
already existing or desired.”4 God’s kingdom is already experienced in the present.
Because it is present, everything the gentiles may consider miraculous or extraordinary, is
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “God’s Kingdom as the Meaning of Life and of the World”, p.101.
2
J. MOLTMANN, “Le royaume de Dieu, sens de la vie et du monde”, in Concilium 128, 1977, p. 121-128, at
127 (trans. mine).
3
4
397
in fact normal in the eyes of those who recognize the presence of the kingdom. According
to Moltmann, the so called miracles at the time of Jesus continue to happen now because
they are natural in the kingdom: the sick do not have to wait until another world to be
healed, the lost are already found and the poor and the oppressed are already liberated.1
The kingdom of God is not only a creation under God’s providence but is the
universe directly governed by Jesus now. It is not a purely religious kingdom, nor a
private religion, confined to private relationships between God and individual persons; it
includes both the living and the dead. It is universal and embraces both heaven and earth;
as Jesus says: ‘All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me’ (Mt. 28:18).
Moltmann says: “The eschatological reign of God, whom Jesus as Kyrios represents and
whose power he exercises, cannot therefore be limited. It bursts the bonds of a divided
world. It embraces the religious life as well as the political one the private as well the
social the living as well as the dead.”2
We will be able to understand the kingdom of God in its entirety only if we view
history with its conditions and potentialities, which are not forever settled by the
providence of creation, but are oriented by actual obedience to the will of God, which is
the transforming power of the kingdom in its present state - unto fulfillment. In fact,
Moltmann indicates that the present condition of creation also constitutes a potentiality
for the coming kingdom, and is not suppressed. However, the kingdom is not only about
the present, but really like a seed that will fully blossom in the future. In this context,
those who are already found, healed and liberated continue to hope for the consummation
of the kingdom, when there will be resurrection and total freedom.3
The kingdom concerns the salvation of body and soul, the liberation of each
individual as well as that of the whole of humanity. Moltmann notes that, unlike
traditional theology, taking only individual eschatology into account as the goal in the
kingdom, contemporary understandings, under the influence of Marx, Nietzsche and
Teilhard de Chardin,4 lean in the opposite direction, abandoning ‘personal hope’ in favor
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Way of Jesus Christ, p. 98-99, 107.
2
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, Jesus Christ for Today’s World, p. 19; The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 190.
4
Cf. P. TEILHARD DE CHARDIN, L’avenir de l’homme, Paris : Seuil, 1970; Le milieu divin, Paris: Seuil,
1958; K. MARX, Sur la religion, Paris : Ed. sociales, 1972; F. NIETZSCHE, Ainsi parlait Zarathoustra, Paris:
Gallimard, 1971.
398
of the collective dimension: the liberation of all humanity and perfection of the world.
According to Moltmann, it is possible to talk about personal salvation, and this personal
salvation is inclusive, i.e. is directed towards all humanity and creatures. The kingdom
has both anthropological and cosmological dimensions. The motive for this inclusiveness
is the unison of the right and the love of God.1
Understanding that the kingdom also includes a cosmological dimension, which is
part of God’s creation, humanity, being reconciled by Jesus Christ and regenerated by the
Holy Spirit, fulfills its mission of contributing to the reconciliation and redemption of
nature. Jesus’ saying ‘my kingdom is not of this world’ (cf. Jn. 18: 36) means that his
kingdom originates in God, not in the world. Because it originates in God the creator, it
embraces all creatures in heaven and on earth. In fact, the future of the kingdom will be
of the new heaven and new earth (cf. Rev. 21:1; 2 Pet. 3:13). In other words, this heaven
and this earth will be renewed; they will have no end. It is not a different creation, but is
the same creation by God, which will be renewed; this perishable nature must put on the
imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality (cf. I Cor. 15:53).
Moltmann explains: “So the kingdom of God means that this world will be different and
will born anew out of violence and injustice to justice, righteousness and peace.”2 He
means that the kingdom of God will be the same temporal world of today but will be
trasformed.
Just because this world is part of the coming kingdom, and God’s kingdom is the
major concern of Jesus Christ, men need to get involved in the world of the kingdom. In
fact, as Jesus sent his disciples: ‘As you go, make this proclamation: the kingdom of God
is at hand. Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, drive out demons’ (Mt. 10: 7),
Christians should go out and contribute to the realization of the kingdom on earth; they
engage in socio-political, cultural, economic and ecological activity in order to render
peace and justice in the world.3
It is the power of God that makes the kingdom present here and now, but it is also
man’s contribution that renders it visible. In anticipating the consummation of the
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Le royaume de Dieu, sens de la vie et du monde”, p.126; “God’s Kingdom as the
Meaning of Life and of the World”, p. 100-102.
2
J. MOLTMANN, Jesus Christ for Today’s World, p. 23; cf. Theology of Hope, p. 330.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, Jesus Christ for Today’s World, p. 21-23.
399
kingdom, Christians and the Church live according to their Christian vocation in such a
way that the world may see them as witnesses of the presence of the kingdom now: “The
kingdom of God becomes present in history through the rule of God. The rule of God is
manifested through word and faith, obedience and fellowship, in potentialities grasped,
and in free co-operation for the life of the world.”1
3.3. Anticipating the kingdom of God

‘Anticipation of the kingdom of God’ not only means the act of anticipation, but
also the partial presence of the coming whole of the kingdom.
3.3.1. Acts of anticipation

The coming kingdom is already present as God’s liberating rule, through the
gospel and God’s promises. God’s promises and gospel shape the life of the world when
“the promises call people out of the environment… and put them on the path to the
fulfillment of the promises. They free people from earthly slavery and call them to the
road of freedom. The gospel calls men and women out of the bondage of sin, law and
death and puts them on the road to righteousness and the freedom of eternal life.”2 It is
the Holy Spirit who guides people in their journey according to God’s promises and the
gospel: “The Spirit of God makes the impossible possible; he creates faith where there is
nothing else to believe in; he creates love where there is nothing lovable; he creates hope
where there is nothing to hope for.”3
The kingdom of God, understood as eschatological future, is brought about by
God himself. According to Pannenberg, however, the future and the present of history are
inextricably interwoven, for the imminent future of the kingdom already impacts on the
present.4 It is already visibly present through the Church’s life of witness to the world, by
its getting involved in, criticizing and liberating the world.5
The kingdom of God is not obtained through private relationships between God
and individuals, but on the public scene; it involves all aspects of the lives of all people.
1
2
Ibid., p. 191.
3
Ibidem.
4
Cf. W. PANNENBERG, Theology and the Kingdom of God, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1968,
p.53.
5
With regard to the doctrine of the kingdom, I see that Moltmann and Pannenberg have the same views.
400
Therefore, the separation of Church and state should not turn the Church into a privately
religious association, but rather the Church must address the message of the kingdom of
God in words and in deeds publicly.1 Indeed, because the Church lives and fulfils its
mission in view of the coming kingdom of God, it has to get involved in public matters,
for the coming kingdom and the present society are closely connected. For the sake of the
kingdom of God, the Church becomes a public institution of the world and for the world.
Moltmann says: “If according to its own self-understanding, however, the Church is a
form of the kingdom of God in the history of this world alienated from God, then it is
always concerned with more than just the Church itself.”2
The foundation of the Church’s public life is Jesus Christ who was a public
figure; he preached to the public about the poor and neglected and promised them the
kingdom; he was condemned for political reasons. The Church, therefore, cannot but be
for the lowly, preaching the theology of the kingdom of God, which liberates the poor,
the oppressed, the outcast, the sick, the prisoners, etc. The coming kingdom is already
actualized through the liberation of the least of the people of God. Indeed, according to
the Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount, “the kingdom focuses on the poor, the sick
and the weaker members of any given society.”3
Thus, the Church has to become the Church of the kingdom of God. Moltmann
says that the ‘kingdom of God’ means shalom. Therefore, the Church has to work for
peace in the world. It has to promote and protect life, which will bring about a harmony
on earth where all creatures can coexist. He asserts: “The anticipated kingdom of God
encompasses both human beings and the earth; without a redemption of the earth itself,
there will be no salvation for human beings.”4
It is important to stress that anticipation of the coming kingdom provokes men to
demonstrate their faith in their public lives. We cannot talk about anticipation without
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, A Passion for God’s Reign, p. 51-54; God for a Secular Society, p. 253-254.
2
J. MOLTMANN, A Passion for God’s Reign, p. 51. Moltmann says that theology also has an important role
in the kingdom: “If the Church represents a historical form of the coming kingdom of God, then theology
cannot be merely a ‘function of the Church,’ like the Church itself, [it] must become a function of the
kingdom of God in the world. And as a function of the kingdom of God, theology also belongs in the
political, cultural, educational, economic, and ecological spheres of life within society” J. MOLTMANN, A
Passion for God’s Reign, p. 51).
3
4
401
talking about the accompanying active life. Indeed, “expectation of the promised future
of the kingdom of God which is coming to man and the world to set them right and create
life, makes us ready to expend ourselves unrestrainedly and unreservedly in love and in
the work of the reconciliation of the world with God and his future.”1
According to Moltmann, in anticipating the coming kingdom, the Church and
each individual have to be open to the world and other human beings. Indeed, because of
the universal priesthood conferred to all Christians through baptism, all believers have
the vocation of offering their lives “in the service of God, in the work of his kingdom and
the freedom of faith.”2 On the contrary, if the Church is closed to itself and the individual
is closed to himself, they shut themselves out of the coming kingdom. Anticipation is a
public act; it is not waiting in the secret of one’s person. It draws the person in
anticipation into relationships with others. This requires openness that necessarily leads
to transformation. Openness and alteration will render people and the Church “vulnerable
and capable of being hurt.”3 Anticipation requires openness to alteration, but openness
necessarily engages resistance (from the present and tendencies to self-centeredness).
However, when a person is committed to the coming kingdom in anticipation, he is ready
to give and open himself to the future.4
3.3.2. Partial possession of the coming kingdom

The world in its present form is already a partial presence of the complete
kingdom. Moltmann indicates that anticipation does not mean only the act of
anticipation, but also a partial possession of the whole of the future. In fact, the present
world is not and will not be destroyed, but is being transformed; its present constituent is
necessary for its future. Moltmann says: “An anticipation is not yet a fulfillment. But it is
already the present of the future in the condition of history. It is the fragment of the
coming whole. It is a payment made in advance of complete fulfillment and part-
possession of what is still to come.”5
1
2
Ibid., p. 330.
3
4
5
402
In this sense, the kingdom has to be understood in the context of the whole of
history, which is one and indivisible. The future will not abolish the present and the past,
but comprises them. The present is part of the whole of history, in which the whole
kingdom exists: “If the anticipation pars pro toto represents a fragmentary taking
possession of the coming whole, the part anticipated stands in the present, not only ahead
of the whole but at the same time for the whole.”1
Because the goal of the Church’s anticipation is not itself, but the kingdom, the
Church does not lives for its own sake, but for other creatures who also belong to the
kingdom: “Anticipations are hence always a preliminary taking possession of what is to
come for other people and other things. In this way they represent what is to come and
not themselves.”2
The Church participates both in the act of anticipation and in the ‘partial
presence’ of the kingdom, for the kingdom comprises the Church and the Church
anticipates the coming kingdom. The Church is “representing something universal: God’s
kingdom and righteousness.”3 In other words, the Church is a provisional reality to serve
the coming universal kingdom of God in the world. It’s anticipation of the kingdom of
God means that it is a preliminary and fragmentary part of the whole coming kingdom.
In fact, there is a relationship between the two meanings of the ‘anticipation of the
kingdom’: the act of anticipation and the partial possession of the kingdom. The whole
coming kingdom is on its way to realization through the act of anticipation. In other
words, the act of anticipation is part of the realization of the coming kingdom; the partial
representation of the kingdom entails the acts of anticipation. Indeed, the Church is the
anticipation of the kingdom by its self-giving for the future of others. It establishes the
messianic fellowship of service for the kingdom in the world. It will not disappear, but
will be superseded by the kingdom. When its mission is accomplished, it will find its
fulfillment in the kingdom. The Church’s mission is to spread the kingdom, not itself. It
does not spread the Christian religion or implant the Church, but liberates people and the
rest of the world.
1
Ibid., p. 195.
2
Ibidem.
3
403
3.4. Coming kingdom and the Church.

In discussing the Church’s anticipation of the kingdom further, we can ask: What
is the position of the coming Church in relation to the coming kingdom? Moltmann says:
“The Church in the power of the Spirit is not yet the kingdom of God, but it is its
anticipation in history. Christianity is not yet the new creation, but it is the working of the
Spirit of the new creation.”1 By ‘not yet the kingdom of God’, Moltmann probably does
not want to say that the Church will become the coming kingdom, but that the Church
now is only its anticipation.2 In other words, it is only a fragmentary possession of the
coming kingdom. The Church does not represent its own future, but is representative of
something else; the something else here is the kingdom. The coming kingdom has its
anticipation in the Church in the sense that it is already fragmentarily represented in the
Church. We can also say that the Church is one form of the kingdom in history or that the
Church is one historical form of the coming kingdom. In this sense the kingdom at
present and the coming kingdom is more comprehensive than the visible Church.3
As representative of the coming kingdom, the Church is in its process of “self-
transcendence over its social and historical limitations,”4 for it does not exist for itself or
represent itself for itself, but for the coming kingdom. “The future of God which is
symbolized by the term ‘kingdom of God’ includes the future of the world: the future of
the nation, the future of humanity, the future of all living things and the future of the
earth, on which and from which everything that is here lives.”5 Because God’s kingdom
comprises all his creatures and the Church is only a representative and anticipation of it,
the Church needs to live and act beyond its boundaries. The Church must renounce the
traditionally introverted orientation of being for itself and take on an extroverted
orientation. For the sake of the universal kingdom of God, the Church continues the
mission of Jesus in evangelisation and liberation, i.e. proclaiming the message of the
1
2
Moltmann rejects the idea of the Church’s possibility of becoming a universal Church: “If the Church
finds its historical catholicity, which is related to the coming kingdom, in its apostolate, then it also
acquires freedom from those enthusiastic dreams of realizing the universality of God’s kingdom through a
universal Christian state or by supplanting Israel” (J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p.
350-151).
3
4
5
J. MOLTMANN, God for a Secular Society, p. 251- 252.
404
kingdom, preaching repentance and engagement in liberation of those, including all

creatures, that are oppressed.1
As already said ubiquitously in this research, according to Moltmann the coming
kingdom will retain all that is good in creatures; therefore, the Church, in its act of
anticipating the kingdom, should foster all the positive aspects of people and the rest of
creation, as Vatican II also says: “The Church or people of God which establishes this
kingdom does not take away anything from the temporal welfare of any people. Rather
she fosters and takes to her, in so far as they are good, the abilities, the resources and
customs of peoples. In so taking them to her she purifies, strengthens and elevates
them.”2
According to Moltmann, the coming kingdom is not a kingdom of the future but
one of the present, as Herman-Emiel Mertens, commenting on Moltmann’s
eschatological book ‘The Coming of God,’ says: “the divine promise of a happy future is
to be heard as an appeal to protest and to fight against all forms of misery, injustice and
oppression. The eschatological message does not only concern life after death; it is also
liberating and hope-giving for this earthly life.”3 In trying to bring eschatology into the
vocation of Christians as a present mission, Moltmann is not content with the character of
time in the eschatology of Albert Schweitzer and Oscar Cullmann, nor with the
dimension of eternity in that of Karl Barth, Paul Althaus and Rudolf Bultmann, but
considers eschatology as an advent, which in Greek means literally ‘presence’.4 For
Moltmann, if Christians have hope in their future as promised by God they will act now
for the sake of their eschatology, which concerns the present, not the past or only the
future: “As the eschatological future the kingdom has become the power that determines
the present. This future has already begun. We can already live in the light of the ‘new
era’ in the circumstances of the ‘old’ one. Since the eschatological becomes historical in
this way, the historical also becomes eschatological.”5
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, Jesus Christ for Today’s World, p. 23, 27-28; Theology of Hope, p. 325.
2
VATICAN II, Lumen Gentium, n. 13.
3
H.-E. MERTENS, ‘The Future of God. Moltmann’s Adventurous Journey of Exploration’ in Louvain
Studies 22, 1997, p. 85-90, at 90.
4
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Coming of God, p. 3-22; cf. H.-E. MERTENS, ‘The Future of God. Moltmann’s
Adventurous Journey of Exploration’, p. 86.
5
405
The Church lives and accomplishes its mission in view of the coming kingdom.
“The Christian Church which follows Christ’s mission to the world is engaged also in
following Christ’s service of the world. It has its nature as the body of the crucified and
the risen Christ only where in specific act of service it is obedient to its mission to the
world.”1 The Church lives in the kingdom by fulfilling many aspects of life: it anticipates
the kingdom by reforming itself and the world, offering itself for the service of its
members and the world. It resists what is negative in the society; it dialogues with other
religions and socio-political institutions in order to render more actual and visible the
kingdom of God. Moltmann says succinctly that the Church’s life is “determined by
anticipation, resistance, self-giving and representation.”2
CONCLUDING REMARKS OF PART III

The Church in the era of the Holy Spirit continues to be the Church of Jesus
Christ. The Lord calls, gathers, justifies and sanctifies Christians in the Church; the Holy
Spirit fortifies them with charismata; they are then sent into the world by the Lord to
serve the kingdom of God. “Hence the Christian community does not live from itself and
for itself, but from the sovereignty of the risen Lord and for the coming sovereignty of
him who has conquered death and is bringing life, righteousness and the kingdom of
God.”3 Christians live in present reality, but are also oriented towards the kingdom which
already exists now and will be consummated at the end of time.
‘Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things will be
given you besides’ (Mt. 6:33; Lk. 12:31). Moltmann says that Jesus wants Christians to
seek redemptions not only for themselves but also for the whole world. Therefore,
Christians and the Church transcend religion to the kingdom, the Church to the world,
individual concerns to the concerns of humanity as a whole.4
The Church is at the same time charismatic and exodus; it fulfils its mission
towards both its members within the Church and the rest of the people of God in the
world. With regard to its mission towards its members, the Church should reform itself so
that it may change from a Church for the people into a Church of the people. In other
1
2
3
4
406
words, if the Church wants to care for its people, it needs to allow people to make use of
the charismata the Holy Spirit empowers them with.
With regards to the Church’s mission towards the world, the Church is open to the
world. Faith, hope and charity are not about private religion, but are a public affair. The
Church and Christians need to criticize the world and its political systems and get
involved in promoting a better world with a view to the kingdom. R. Bauckham analyses:
“Moltmann’s theology of hope brought the eschatological future to bear on the immediate
temporal future of society. It understood the Church in its mission to the world as an
agent of eschatological unrest, charged with keeping society on the move towards the
coming Kingdom of God. As a theological turning towards the future and the world it
aimed at a practical turning towards the future and the world on the part of the
Churches.”1
Because the Church is the anticipation of the kingdom, i.e., only a partial
possession of the kingdom, it lives with a view to the whole kingdom of God - which is
universal. Being conscious of this reality, the Church, in fulfilling its mission towards its
members and the rest of the world, exists not only for others, but also particularly with
others: “Being-there-for-others is the fundamental structure of Christ’s Church which
vicariously speaks up for men and particularly represents those who have no one to speak
for them. Being-there-for-others is essential for the liberation and redemption of human
life that has been oppressed and become guilty… Still, Being-there-for-others is not the
final answer… It is a way, although the only way, which leads to being-there-with-
others… Being-there-for-others in vicarious love has as its end to be with others in
liberty. Giving bread to the world’s hungry has as its end to break our bread with all
mankind.”2
The ultimate result of the Church’s mission is liberation and freedom. “Freedom
is thrown open to all who believe through the justifying and liberating Word of God.
Faith makes them ‘free master of all things’. They are subject to no one. Love makes
them ‘the ministering servants of all things’. They are subject to everyone.”3 Moltmann,
1
R. J. BAUCKHAM, Moltmann Messianic Theology in the Making, p.3-4.
2
J. MOLTMANN, Theology of Joy, p. 86.
3
J. MOLTMANN, God for Secular Society, p. 198, Moltmann refers to Luther’s treatise ‘On the Freedom of
a Christian’ (1521).
407
referring to Paul Ricoeur, says: “In the light of the resurrection hope, freedom has two
sides. It lives in liberating protest and it lives on the superabundance of the future.”1
These two aspects, i.e. freedom in the Church and liberation in the world, reflect the
‘exodus and charismatic’ Church of Christ anticipating the coming kingdom.
1
J. MOLTMANN, “ “The Liberating Feast”, p. 84; cf. P. RICOEUR, “La liberté selon l’espérance’ in Le conflit
des interprétations, Paris : Seuil, 1969, p. 393-415.
408
PART IV. AN ASSESSMENT OF MOLTMANN’S ECCLESIOLOGY

Only after thoroughly studying Moltmann’s ecclesiology, do I find out that
Moltmann’s ecclesiology contains both prospects and problems, both meriting praise and
stimulating diverse interpretations.
Someone might make the comment that Moltmann is very ecumenical in the sense
that his theology is very close to Roman Catholic theology; others might say that he is too
liberal because he proposes some theological perspectives that seem completely novel to
traditional understanding. Both views are appropriate.
Moltmann tries to theologize from within his reformed-Protestantism affilation,
takimg into account the viewpoints of other denominations. In this sense, he is very
ecumenical, dealing with both the doctrines and structures of the Catholic and Protestant
Churches. He himself, as well as others, acknowledge that he discusses both the
conservative and progressive elements from both progressive and conservative
viewpoints.1 Given these considerations, we can say that Moltmann is both liberal and
ecumenical. He is not only liberal according to many Catholics, but also in the judgment
of many Protestants; for example, he considers the invitation to the Lord’s Table open to
all human beings, whether Christians or not.
1. APPRAISALS
In order to criticize Moltmann’s ecclesiology fairly, we need to speak from
without, i.e. not remaining within our own denomination, whether Protestant or Roman
Catholic. However, this is almost impossible, because a theologian is necessarily rooted
in one denomination. Many Catholic theologians criticize Moltmann’s ecclesiology as
more negative than positive. I believe that they did so because they did not consider
Moltmann’s ecclesiology as a whole, but criticized him during his on-going theological
development. However, their critiques have certain merit.
The best approach for criticizing Moltmann’s ecclesiology is to avoid departing
from an ecclesio-centric approach, while basing oneself on Trinitarian theology and the
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. XIII.
409
Christo-centric approach. In other words, Moltmann’s ecclesiology proceeds from within

the Trinitarian history of God’s relationship with the world, i.e., God has a universal plan
in his relationship with the world, in which the Church participates. A Christology that
considers Jesus Christ as the centre of the Church is also of utmost importance for
Moltmann’s eschatological ecclesiology.
1.1. Approaches
While Bultmann’s Christian eschatology focuses on present reality, and that of
Cullman on the past, both Moltmann and Pannenberg set sights on the future. According
to Zachary Hayes, Moltmann’s approach to theology is based on strongly negative
dialectics, i.e., the opposition between the present and the future. The contrasting
elements of this dialectics are not of complementary and mutually affirmative, but
contradictory and mutually negating. “Present and future, experience and hope stand not
only in contrast with each other but in contradiction with each other.”1
Hayes also comments that there is a difference between the theology of hope of
Pannenberg and that of Moltmann. For Pannenberg, there is already the presence of the
future in the present; therefore, the present is not totally negative. In the present, the
fulfilment of hope is already latent. The present is becoming the future. Thus, the future
and the present are mutually complementary. On the contrary, for Moltmann, there is a
total contradiction between the present and the future. The present is negative; therefore,
it must be abolished and replaced by the future.2 Moltmann’s dialectical theology of hope
1
Z. HAYES, Visions of a Future, p.135.
2
Hayes observes that like Moltmann, Pannenberg’s eschatology places centrality on the future. It is not the
present that shapes the future, but the future that draws the course of the present. Pannenberg also adopts
the apocalyptic approach present in Scripture. A human being, by nature, has a proleptic structure. He “as a
conscious being lives out and enacts this proleptic future orientation in his or her quest for meaning” (Z.
HAYES, Visions of a Future, p. 138). What makes Pannenberg’s theology different from that of Moltmann
is, among many aspects, the association of the proleptic future orientation with history. “As the meaning of
each part of a literary text is related to the meaning of the whole text, so the meaning of each moment or
event of history is related to the whole of history. This means that the question of meaning is intrinsically
related to the question of the whole of history. Since it is impossible to speak of the whole of history until
history has run its course, it follows that the meaning of history can be seen fully only from the end-point of
history” (Z. HAYES, Visions of a Future, p. 138). In this sense, the meaning of the present is not yet
determined, since the end of history has not yet been accomplished. Therefore, the present still has its life
and value, and we cannot abolish, but respect it. More specifically, for Pannenberg, human history has been
precisely and proleptically realized in Jesus. His resurrection is the anticipation of the destiny of the world
and human society. Their histories are already determined. God is not absent from the present. His presence
in history evokes the Church and its members to anticipate and represent the future, the destiny of the
410
spurs a political revolution. “It is not a sense of harmony between nature and grace, or
history and eschatology that leads the Christian to action in the world. On the contrary, it
is the sense of disproportion and disharmony evoked by the proclamation of the promise
of God in the Gospel that leads to Christian concern and action… Moltmann envisions
Christians as entering into the world by contradicting its present state, by upsetting it, and
thus bringing the world beyond its present condition.”1 Hayes finds that Moltmann’s
theology of hope tends to move beyond existential theologies and recognizes only the
reality of the future; therefore, as a consequence, he fails to recognize the immediate
presence of God in the present history of humanity, as L. Gilkey2 points out. Hayes also
criticizes Moltmann for his opting for the apocalyptic approach among the various
models of theology found in the biblical tradition, which seems to be more personal than
theological.3 J. Ratzinger, on the other hand, criticizes Moltmann for enshrining the
promise. Since it evokes a complete destruction of the present, it denies human
responsibilities, and thus falsifies the Gospel.4
However, in my view, in considering Moltmann’s whole theology, we find that
his so-called “totally contradictory dialectics” is relative, not absolute. Moltmann
underlines this total contradiction in order to emphasize the future as much as possible,
namely, the future of God and the future kingdom. Indeed, this makes his theology
different from Pannenberg’s, that is to say, the future of Jesus is the goal of human hope.
Furthermore, Moltmann also interprets the Church’s mission as anticipating and
representing the future. One of its major missionary works is the renewal of itself and the
world. In fact, Moltmann’s theology leads necessarily to a replacement of the present
with the future; however, this is not a vision of the total annulment of the world, but the
completion of the history of the world, which is the future. Therefore, the judgments of
Hayes, Gilkey and Ratzinger, when they interpret Moltmann’s theology as calling for a
totally revolutionary replacement of the present, are questionable. On the contrary,
universe. In this context, there is a more positive relationship between the present and the future (cf. Z.
HAYES, Visions of a Future, p. 139).
1
Z. HAYES, Visions of a Future, p. 135.
2
Cf. L. GILKEY, “The Universal and Immediate Presence of God,” in F. HERZOG (ed.), The Future of
Hope: Theology as Eschatology, New York: Herder & Herder, 1970, p. 81-109.
3
Cf. Z. HAYES, Visions of a Future, p. 136-137.
4
Cf. J. RATZINGER, Theological Investigations, vol 10, Baltimore: Helicon Press / London: Darton,
Longman & Todd, 1966, p.19-20.
411
Moltmann affirms the preservation of all that is good in all creatures which are part of the
coming kingdom. According to Moltmann, what is good in creatures is the anticipation,
i.e., the partial representation, of the coming kingdom.
1.2. The distinctiveness of Moltmann’s ecclesiology.

It is easy to recognize the distinctiveness of Motlmann’s ecclesiology; here we
can name three types: Christological, eschatological and liberation ecclesiology.
1.2.1. Christo-centric ecclesiology.

Moltmann has witnessed two opposite tendencies: the over-dependence of the
Church on the state and the religious lives of Christians considered as totally private.
Furthermore, in ecumenical efforts, many Churches continue to hold on to comparative
ecclesiology. For these reasons, Moltmann argues that the Church needs to turn back to
its foundation, which is Jesus Christ.
In order to know the reason by which Moltmann’s ecclesiology is Christo-centric,
we need to go back to Barth’s early influence on him while at Göttingen. Following the
maxim cuius regio, eius religio, for many centuries, the German Church had become
closely related to the state to point that it became overly state dependent. This practice
caused the identification of the Church with German culture, and thus, the Church lost its
identity. Barth saw the problem and argued that the Church needed to reorient itself to
God as its source of grace, and to Sola Scriptura and faith as its confirmation. It was not
the state, but the sovereign lordship of Christ that is the subject of the Church.
Barth influenced Moltmann on the point that the Church cannot be governed by
the state, but has to be under the sole lordship of Jesus Christ; in that perspective,
Moltmann’s ecclesiology is Christo-centric as he reiterates and accentuates that the
Church is the Church of Jesus Christ.
However, Moltmann also disagrees with Barth who discarded the extreme
dependence of the Church on the state and moved to another extreme: sola Scriptura and
consequently, the Church’s need to disengage itself from the world. On the contrary,
according to Moltmann, the Church, founded on the sole lordship of Jesus Christ, cannot
escape the world, but is supposed to get involved in the world. This is because the Church
is the Church of Jesus Christ, not of the state; it has to fulfil its mission towards and in the
412
world. If, in the past, the state controlled the Church, now the Church has the duty of
guiding the state. Faith is not a private affair, a two-way relationship between the faithful
and God, but rather a public affair and a three-way relationship: “I-Thou-and They”. In
other words, the Church and Christians, having faith, have to get involved in improving
the world in which they live and give witness to their faith.
The Church is not a Church of the state nor of itself, but of Jesus Christ. If
traditional Christology does not include the future of Jesus as the essential element,
Moltmann’s Christology emphasizes the future of Jesus without de-emphasizing the life,
death and resurrection of Jesus. For Moltmann, Jesus’ life must include his future, which
is called ‘the coming of Jesus’. In this sense, parousia means the coming Jesus, not the
coming of Jesus, the return of Jesus or his second coming as traditionally interpreted.
Moltmann’s ecclesiology returns to its origin, foundation and source of life, that is
Jesus Christ; and following in this direction, the Church will be able to avoid certain
pitfalls, such as being ‘the absolute hierarchical Church’ or ‘the Church for people’, etc.
The Church of Jesus Christ is a Church of people, a participatory Church. By considering
itself as Christo-centric, the Church corrects its tendency of being too ecclesio-centric
and reforms its relationships with the world.
1.2.2. Eschatological ecclesiology

According to Moltmann, because the Church is the Church of Jesus Christ, it has
to fulfil its mission with a view to the kingdom of God that will be consummated at the
parousia of Jesus Christ. Because the Church orients itself towards the coming kingdom
and the coming Jesus Christ and has hope in him, it is essentially eschatological. The
eschatology in Moltmann’s ecclesiology retains the colour of Bloch’s philosophy of
hope.
Bloch, in analyzing history, derives impulses from the future for his philosophy of
hope. Following Bloch’s method of analysis, Moltmann also starts from the future in his
theology of hope, seeing its influence on the present: man always has consciousness of a
future contributing to the form of his present life. Thus, the present is conditioned by the
future. In relating his ecclesiology of hope to his theology of hope, Moltmann considers
the Church as the eschatological Church; i.e. it has hope in the future, in the coming
kingdom and the coming Jesus Christ. In hoping in the future, the Church lives its life
413
with a view to its own future and the world’s. Looking forward to the future, the Church
lives in the present.
According to Moltmann, the coming kingdom is already present in the world
today. The present condition of the world is the anticipating reality of the coming
kingdom. In other words, the present condition of the world will not be totally annulled,
but is essential to the coming world. There are good aspects in this world, because what
God has created is good, and He will not abandon it. In this sense, the Church, in
anticipating the coming kingdom, will contribute to improving the present condition of
the temporal world.
The Church will not become the kingdom, but only a part of it. The Church is
only a part of the whole history of God’s dealing with the world. In this sense,
Moltmann’s ecclesiology is also Theo-centric. In fact, God relates himself to the world
within one world history, and the Church is included in this history. Therefore, the nature
of the Church and its mission need to be in harmony with God’s plan for the salvation of
the world.
Realizing its role and position in the world, the Church is able to relate to the rest
of the world: Israel, other religions and socio-political movements. The Church
anticipates the coming kingdom in its partial representation of the coming kingdom and
also in its mission.
1.2.3. Liberation ecclesiology

Some people criticize Moltmann’s ecclesiology as negative, having too many
liberation characteristics. However, according to Moltmann, if the Church is the Church
of Christ and has hope in the coming kingdom, it has to anticipate that by helping to
improve the world, which is part of the coming kingdom. Furthermore, the object of
Jesus’ redemption of the world includes all spiritual and material creations. In this
context, all that is good in this world will be preserved in the coming kingdom. However,
the world today still contains many negative aspects and sufferings; therefore, the Church
should contribute to the liberation of the world.
Those who want to confine salvation and the Church’s mission only to the
spiritual realm certainly oppose the Church’s involvement in this liberation. But they are
wrong, because according to Moltmann, redemption includes all creatures and requires
414
liberation from all its hindrances. Therefore, the Church should get involved in the
world’s politics, criticizing political systems, and promoting freedom, peace and rights
for humans as well as for the rest of creatures. For Moltmann, the ultimate goal of the
Church’s mission of liberation is the affirmation of life. “The hope for the kingdom of
God and God’s righteousness which Christian faith arouses and keeps alive is a great
affirmation of life.”1
The Church’s engagement in the liberation effort also includes liberation within
the Church, which would allow the laity to freely participate and contribute in the
Church. The Church is a Church of the people, a participatory Church.
1.3. Positive achievements

We cannot narrate in detail all the achievements of Moltmann’s reformed
ecclesiology; here only few are described.
1.3.1. A participatory Church

Basing himself on the same Christological and baptismal theologies in order to
argue for Church reform, Moltmann asserts that all Christians receive the same
priesthood from Jesus Christ, through baptism. Because Jesus already frees the Church
and all its members, in the liberated Church there will be no distinction of race, class or
nation; there will be no religious, economic or sexual privilege. In that Church, only the
liberating lordship of Jesus Christ rules, all members are equal and endowed with gifts
and commissioned to fulfil the Church’s mission.2
He advocates a renewal of the Church that would transform the Church from an
institution looking after people, into a participatory Church in which the laity is active in
decision-making and in participating in the activities of the Church. This reformed
Church is not exclusively a Church for the people, but also of the people. Although at
first glance, Moltmann seems to overemphasize the ‘of the people’ aspect, he does not, in
fact, completely abandon the ‘for the people’ aspect. In other words, the renewal of the
Church that allows the laity to participate in the hierarchy of the Church maintains the
Church for the people and at the same time the Church of the people, thanks to
1
J. MOLTMANN, “End of Utopia - End of History?” in Concilium, 1994/2, p. 134-136, at 136.
2
415
reformation from above that re-examines the needs of the people and the new movements
arising from base-communities, which encourage people of all levels to get involved in
the life of the congregation. In this reformed Church model, “people feel that they are
personally addressed and taken seriously. Here they are ‘needed’, with their own
particularly abilities and gifts. Free decision in faith, voluntary community, mutual
recognition and acceptance of one another, together with a common effort for justice and
peace in this violent society of ours: these are the guidelines for the Church’s future.”1
The Church of Christ is one, holy, catholic and apostolic because it preserves its
identity by continuing the same mission and maintaining the content of the proclamation
throughout history. Therefore, it is essential that the Church retain the same mission and
content. Ministers are those who are charged with carrying on the ministries that the
Church receives for its mission; they are not a hierarchy higher than the rest of Church
members, but are called to fulfil the particular charges commissioned to the whole
Church; together with every member of the Church, they help the Church adapt to new
historical situations and at the same time maintain the same mission and content.
1.3.2. Liberation of the poor and the oppressors

One of the concrete missions of the Church is liberating the poor. The liberation
theology of Moltmann and other theologians, as well as of the documents of the CELAM,
are praised for this initiative.
The liberation characteristics of their theology are biblically based: Jesus Christ
identified himself with the poor and the ‘the least of the brethren’; He is a model for the
Church. In fact, if the thesis ‘ubi Christus, ibi ecclesia’ is valid, then the Church has to be
wherever Christ is, i.e. with the poor and ‘the least’, giving them food and drink,
sheltering them, visiting them.
Another message from the biblical passage of the Last Judgment: the poor, the
unknown and disowned brethren also belong to the Church community. The two
statements of Jesus: ‘Whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do it unto me’ and
‘He who hears you hears me’, prompt the Church to go out to meet ‘the least of his
brethren’ and they listen to the Church. The Church does not distinguish its professed
members from the non-professed members of the Body of Christ. This is a new way of
1
Ibid. p. XVI.
416
seeing the theology of liberation, which is not only a theology of Latin America or the
Third World, but nowadays universal. It “exceeds its Roman Catholic boundaries and
becomes catholic in the wider, ecumenical sense. It even goes beyond the boundaries of
Christian religious communities and strengthens every effort to liberate people from
injustice and oppression.”1
Moltmann affirms that the Church’s mission of liberating the poor needs to entail
two aspects: 1) being with the poor, 2) the poor for the Church.
Firstly, the poor do not want the Church to be exclusively for them; they want the
Church to be with them. In order to liberate the poor, the Church has to accompany them.
“The preferential option for the poor must never make the poor the object of missionary
endeavors, charitable care and revolutionary leadership… They need brothers and sisters
who live with them and listen to them before they talk to them.”2
Secondly, the preferential option for the poor presupposes the option of the poor
for the Church. In other words, the Church cannot be for the poor if the poor do not
belong to the Church. When the Church practices ‘the preference for the poor’, it allows
the poor to be subjects of the Church. Thus, they become active in the Church.3
Furthermore, we cannot ignore the fact that Moltmann includes the rich and the
oppressors among the objects of liberation. He recognizes that very often oppressors are
also victims of socio-political and economical systems; they sometimes are not aware of
their pitiful situations. They, too, need to be liberated.
Moltmann assumes that oppression involves both the subject and the object of the
act of oppression: “The oppressor acts inhumanely, the victim is dehumanized. The evil
the perpetrator commits robs him of his humanity, the suffering he inflicts dehumanizes
the victim.”4 Therefore, liberation must have as its objective not only the oppressed but
also the oppressors. In fact, the oppressed will not be liberated if the oppressors are not
liberated at the same time.5
1
J. MOLTMANN, “The theology of our liberation”, p.5.
2
3
Cf. ibid., p. 235.
4
Ibid., p. 185.
5
Of course an effort is also required from the side of the oppressed. They should not entrust their fate to the
hands of the oppressors or other people, but also need to be aware of their oppressed lives and take the
initiative in liberating themselves (Cf. J. MOLTMANN, Jesus Christ for Today’s World, p. 17).
417
But why do the rich need to be liberated, for their own sake or for the sake of the
oppressed? Moltmann specifies that the oppressors need to be liberated so that they will
not oppress others anymore. In other words, the priority of the object of liberation is the
oppressed and the poor, not the rich and the oppressors. Following Moltmann’s
arguments, we see that any liberation that includes liberating the rich only as a means of
liberating the poor falls short, because the rich, in their own right, need salvation and
liberation too.
1.3.3. Ecology
Although ecology belongs to the theology of creation, which has traditionally
been treated separately from ecclesiology, Moltmann is praised for incorporating it into
his ecclesiology. Indeed, one of the most innovative aspects in Moltmann’s ecclesiology
is the theology of ecology while we can safely say that a systematic ecclesiological
ecology has been absent from Roman Catholic documents as well from any systematic
ecclesiology.
Moltmann is successful in relying on Trinitarian and Christological theology as
well as on the eschatology and theology of the kingdom in order to support his ecological
theology, from two perspectives: 1) The pericoresis Trinitarian community is open to the
community of creation, which has “an eschatological orientation towards the messianic
future opened up by the history of Jesus.”1 2) Furthermore, any theology of hope
comprises hope in nature, which has its eschatological goal and will be included in the
coming kingdom already anticipated in the present.2
After going through a theological development, Moltmann’s ecological theology
becomes systematic. According to his earlier book God in Creation, the initial creation is
not in a condition of perfection, but in a process of continual evolution, with the
assistance of the immanent Spirit, towards it goal of perfection. In his later book, The
Way of Jesus Christ, Moltmann argues that redemption comprises redemption of all
creatures; the initial creation in its natural evolution is not redemptive, but needs Jesus
Christ for its redemption. In this sense, Moltmann’s theology of creation opposes that of
1
R. BAUCKHAM, The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann, p. 187.
2
Moltmann’s view of cosmic salvation, i.e., animals and other creatures will be saved and will exist in the
kingdom, has certainly met with disagreements from other theologians.
418
Teilhard and Bloch. Teilhard identified the evolution process with salvation history,
which God already intended in the initial creation. For Bloch, creatures do not now
contain any potentiality for their future; therefore the present world must be annulled. On
the contrary, according to Moltmann, creatures have positive potentiality in their present
conditions; therefore, they can be transformed and need not be destroyed.1
With his awareness of the ecological crisis, Moltmann relates the theology of
creation to liberation theology. According to Biblical creation stories, God rested on the
Sabbath. The earth needs rest too because it anticipates its eschatological goal of
reaching its completion of the Lord’s Sabbath rest. Human beings are also part of the
whole creation of God and belong to the community of creation. They, being images of
God, are only the stewards of God’s garden of creation; therefore, they anticipate the
completion of creation by keeping the Sabbath. These are theological arguments for the
liberation of the earth.
Having said this, we might note some critiques saying that Moltmann’s
theological arguments for his ecological theology are too speculative and lack “specific
recommendations for ecological praxis.”2
1.3.4. Ecumenical and inter-religious dialogues

Moltmann acknowledges that the existing elements already uniting Christians can
further foster Christian unity. For him, because we are united in Jesus Christ through
baptism, there should be no valid reason, even given traditional doctrinal distinctions,
justifying the separation of the Churches. In order to further foster Christian unity, the
denominations, trying to find positive grounds for the unity, need to surpass comparative
ecclesiology and reach Christological ecclesiology, which considers Jesus Christ the
center of Christian unity.3
While comparative ecclesiology exposes ecclesial differences between
denominations and unsuccessfully tries to reconcile them, Christological ecclesiology
bases itself on the source of unity that is Jesus Christ in order to find common aspects all
denominations share. Indeed, in practicing Christological ecclesiology, the ‘Commission
1
Cf. R. BAUCKHAM, The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann, p. 194-196.
2
Ibid., p. 184.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 12-15; this thesis, p. 88-89.
419
on Faith and Order’ has invited all Churches to trace their origins to Christ as their
beginning, as “from river to the source.”1 According to Moltmann, given this
Christological focus, denominations are able to realize that they all already belong to one
Church of Christ and should collaborate with a view to the coming kingdom.2 For
Moltmann, there is no other approach, such as ones based on hierarchical order or
ecclesiastical doctrines that can possibly help take the first step to Christian unity.
Urged on by the wish of Jesus: “that they may be one” (John 17: 21) and based
principally on Christological and baptismal theologies, Moltmann argues that all
Christians, disregarding their denomination, possess the right of sharing at the same
Table of the Lord. Once the Churches respect this principle, Church unity will be
strengthened, for by sharing at the same Table of the Lord, breaking the same Bread and
partaking in the same Cup, Christians are bound together in the One Body of Jesus
Christ. This is Moltmann’s strongest argument in his effort to foster Christian unity.
Moltmann argues that if the Church is truly the Church of Jesus Christ, then no
Church authority can prohibit Christians from uniting in the Church of Jesus Christ who
invites all believers to his Table. The Lord’s Table is not the sign of a prior unity of the
Church, but rather is the consequence of a prior Christian unity issuing from Jesus Christ
through baptism. In other words, it is not an apparent ecclesial unity, but the Lord’s open
invitation that is a condition for admission to the Lord’s Table. The Lord’s Table is the
means and source for further Church unity. With this theology, Moltmann offers an
approach for strengthening ecumenical dialogue, which can be further reinforced by
participants’ coming together at the same Table of the Lord.
Inter-religious dialogue also has to take the presence of religious pluralism into
account. For Moltmann, the Church is part of the whole history of God’s relationship
with the world. In other words, God has his plan of universal salvation, and the Church is
one of his many instruments for achieving this plan. Moltmann argues that Israel and
other religions will not disappear and that Christian religions will remain minority.
Therefore, in dialoging with other religions, the Church will respect all positive values
existing in other religions.
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 13; cf. WCC, Third world Conference on Faith
and Order, p. 15.
2
420
All religions are included in God’s plan of salvation, and have the same aspiration
and mission for human unity, peace and world perfection. While inter-religious dialogues
often ignore traditional and indigenous religions in Africa, America, Asia and the Pacific,
Moltmann says it is important to include them in the dialogue.
For Moltmann, the main goal of this inter-religious dialogue is not discussing
doctrines or sharing one another’s religious experiences, but rather achieving consensus
and cooperation in promoting the life of the world. In fact, religions, in order to be
accepted in the world, i.e., to become ‘world religions’, need to promote and ensure the
security of the well being of humanity, which depends on the survival of the earth and
other creatures.1 In order to become ‘world religions’, religions have to subordinate
themselves to the world’s preservation. Moltmann includes the issue of ecology in the
inter-religious dialogue; this is the strongest reason for including indigenous and
traditional religions, for they have better insights with regard to the cycles and rhythms of
the earth. Therefore, “today the inter-religious dialogue will have to direct its attention
towards these human questions (the ecological problem, the harmony between human
history and nature and the unity of person and nature) if it is to be of practical value for
both the Western and the Eastern religions, and for humanity.”2
2. PROSPECTS
2.1. Points requiring clarification or further development
2.1.1. Preferential options for the poor

There are complaints that many liberation theologians, as well as the documents
of the Episcopal Conference of Latin America, overemphasize ‘preferential options for
the poor’ to the point that the rich seem to be excluded from the Church’s mission of
liberation. Is the Church’s practice of ‘preferential options for the poor’ too exclusive?
Don’t rich people need the Church too?3
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, “Human Rights, the Rights of Humanity and the Rights of Nature”, p. 133;
Experiences in Theology, p. 21.
2
3
Cf. M. R. TRIPOLE, “A Church for the Poor and the World: at Issue with Moltmann’s Ecclesiology”in
Theological Studies 42, 1981, p. 645-658, at 651-654. Only the Church of Latin America specifically uses
421
Although the term ‘poverty’, intended as being inclusive, i.e. of spiritual and
material poverty, by liberation theology and the Church of liberation, it is often applied
exclusively to material poverty (even by Moltmann and other liberation theologians).
Although Moltmann understands that ‘poverty’ means both spiritual and physical
poverty, as illustrated in this statement: “The poor are all who have to exist physically
and spiritually on the fringe of death… We ought not confine poverty in religious terms
to man’s general dependence on God. Nor should it be interpreted in a merely economic
or physical sense either,”1; Moltmann and other theologians rarely mention the spiritual
dimension. On the contrary, in theologizing, they tend to emphasize the social, cultural,
psychological and physical dimensions and, particularly, economic ones.
Although Moltmann should be praised for proposing liberating the rich and the
oppressors, he falls into the tendency of liberation theology, which interprets Scripture
and Jesus’ teachings and examples as merely preferential options for the poor - often
related to material poverty. Moltmann and liberation theology mistakenly lean on the
material poverty and almost ignore the moral, psychological, physical and spiritual
dimensions (cf. Mt. 5: 1-12).2
The ‘preferential option for the poor’ is exclusive in the sense that the non-poor
will be liberated only as a by-product of the liberation of the poor. In fact, Moltmann
indicates that in the process of liberation, everything focuses on the poor. In other words,
the liberation of the poor is the choice of the Church, and the liberation of the non-poor is
necessary for the liberation of the poor. Although Moltmann is commended for insisting
on the need of liberating the oppressors, in my opinion, this initiative falls short because
liberation of the oppressors is done only for the sake of the oppressed. Do the oppressors
not have their own rights, for their own sakes, to be liberated according to the purpose of
Jesus’ preaching? In my opinion, we need to discuss the topic of the liberation of the non-
poor both in its own context and in a wider perspective in relation to the context of the
poor.
the term ‘preferential options for the poor’, while Jesus himself and the official documents of the Catholic
Church do not employ it. In my view, the ‘preferential options for the poor’ can be misunderstood. The
words expressed do not convey what the Church really wants to do for the poor without disregarding the
non-poor. Surely, the Church does not exclude the rich.
1
2
Cf. M. R. TRIPOLE, “A Church for the Poor and the World: at Issue with Moltmann’s Ecclesiology”, p.
651-654.
422
In conclusion, it must be made clear that ‘preferential options for the poor’
requires liberation theology and the Church of liberation to identify who the poor are. In
my judgment, we need to define two issues: ‘poverty according to Scripture’ and ‘who
are the poor”. If ‘poverty’ comprises both physical and spiritual dimensions, many
people, including the materially rich and poor, may be poor, according to Scripture, in the
sense that they need spiritual care. Therefore, ‘preferential options for the poor’ need to
be practiced without ignoring anyone.
2.1.2. Political preferences

Moltmann advocates the democratization of politics and prefers the political
system of democracy:1 “Democracy offers the opportunity to realize the best possible
association between the fact of political rule and the idea of general co-operation, the
greatest possible justice and social security for all.”2 He theorizes that democratic
governments allow all citizens to participate in the decision-making process and extols
democracy because it allows relationships between the state and citizens to flourish. He
says that the reality of democracy “lies in the demolition of master-slave relationships, in
the limitation and control of the political exercise of power, and in activating the people
from their apathy as subjects towards responsible participation in the processes of
political decision.”3
It is undeniable that democracy, as opposed to communism, has much to offer
human beings and society; however, it is still imperfect. In my judgment, there always
exists oppression within so-called democracy, because democracy means the majority
makes the choice. In this system, majority opinion always carries. Consequently,
minority opinion is never opted for.
Ideally, democracy should stand for respecting the opinion of both the minority
and the majority; but in reality we see that only the voices of the majority are heard.
Democracy may best serve human rights and dignity, but often does not reflect the
minority’s political decisions. In this sense, we haven’t found the ideal system yet.
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, Jesus Christ for Today’s World, p. 26-27; The Crucified God, p. 342.
2
3
423
Furthermore, one has to take globalization into account, with its great movement
of illegal immigrants. Indeed, in North America and Europe there are hundreds of
thousand of illegal immigrants; their human and socio-political rights are not respected.
This is because the democratic political system serves mainly the major ethnic groups,
while minority groups, including legal and illegal immigrants, do not have the same
privileges as the major groups.
In addition, the consequences of democracy also cause inequality in economical
distribution, because representatives of majority groups hold most political posts and tend
to take care of and defend their own. In fact, the minority groups, particularly the illegal
immigrants, are excluded a priori from economic, health and financial benefits. In order
to solve this problem, one needs to consider people within the context of a kingdom of
God that includes every person, legal and illegal without regarding where they live. All
people belong to the kingdom; therefore, they have equal human rights.
In my opinion, for the democratic system to work well in Third World countries, a
good level of education and human development is required, but is very often not
achieved. In other words, many Third World countries are not ready for the democratic
system, while First World countries often try to impose democratic systems on them; the
consequence being that because they are not yet prepared for it, civil war often breaks
out. Furthermore, in a country where there are varied ethnic communities, can democratic
systems respect the rights of all ethnic groups? It is possible that democracy serves best
in Europe but not in China, or that communism serves best in China but not in America.
Moltmann says: “Because political constitutions and forms of government are
themselves going through a process of alteration, Christianity must also encourage the
forms of government which best serve human fellowship and human rights and dignity,
and it must resist those forms which hinder or suppress these things.”1 According to this
statement, no political system is definitively perfect. I think that in this new century, with
globalization and the widespread immigrant movement, democratic as well as other
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 177-178. In this sense, can communism in China
serve in promoting justice and peace there? Today, the Church does not talk about opposing the communist
system per se in China or Vietnam, but only encourages them to respect human rights and religious
freedom.
424
political systems need to take a new approach in order to respect human rights and the
dignity of every human being.
Having said this, I do not intend to privilege any political system, whether
communism, socialism or other. I want merely to say that political theology needs to
continue criticizing both communism and democracy.
2.1.3. Lack of specifics

Moltmann’s ecclesiology is too general; it is indeed relevant to the established
Churches. However, it still lacks specific reference to particular denominations. Since
each denominational Church is particular, we cannot discuss all of them along the same
lines. The question is can we develop a universal ecclesiology? One can answer ‘yes’, we
can have common aspects for all and particular aspects of each denomination.1
Specifically, with regard to Christian unity, after pointing out the elements and
conditions for Christian unity, we still need to analyse each denomination and see which
element or condition it needs to meet, change or develop. For example, when a
denomination does not celebrate the Eucharist, it will be hard to unite with denominations
that do celebrate the Eucharist. Of course, this is a delicate issue, and one can be regarded
negatively in judging others. One can say that nobody can judge others.
Along the same lines, Moltmann advocates reform of the Church and emphasizes
the life of local Churches. However, he does not elaborate enough in pointing out
successful examples of particular Churches. The Church he knows best is his own
Church, but he does not talk enough about it, but rather talks more about the Roman
Catholic Church or the Church in general.
2.1.4. The Church and the world in the kingdom

Moltmann says clearly that the Church needs to live and fulfil its mission with a
view to the kingdom. With this principle arises a question regarding the Church’s
relationship to the world. It is evident that, according to Moltmann’s view on political
theology, the Church should criticize the world and its political systems.
Tripole, a Catholic, raises a question as to whether the Church will orient itself
towards the world or the world will orient itself towards the Church, and disagrees with
1
We should note that in the world today there are hundreds of denominations.
425
Moltmann, saying that: “the thesis held by Moltmann and many others is that the
subordination of the Church to the kingdom necessarily implies that of the Church to the
world in its movement towards the kingdom.”1 Tripole argues that although there has not
yet been a sign promising the world’s becoming unified with the Christian community, it
is wrong to conclude that the world will never unite with the Church, and therefore, that
the world will orient itself towards the kingdom independently from the Church. On the
contrary, Scripture (cf. Mt. 28: 16-20, Acts 2: 40-41; 6: 7; 9: 31) clearly indicates that the
Church has the mission of proclaiming and baptizing, so that “the world might be brought
to its transformation by its acceptance of Christ and discipleship of him in and through
the Christian community.”2
Tripole also complains that the Second Vatican Council’s teachings stimulate
conflicting theologies: the Church’s subordination to the world verses the world’s
subordination to the Church; but he argues for the world’s orientation to the Church: the
Church fulfils its mission to the world so that “the name of God and recognition of Jesus
Christ might be promoted in the world, so that the world might thereby come to accept
Jesus Christ and respond to him by membership in his Church (cf. LG. 13-14).” 3
In my view, Tripole’s reference to Scripture and Vatican Council II concluding
that the world has to subordinate itself to the Church and not the Church to the world is
out of context. Moltmann does not affirm the subordination of the Church to the world
nor the world to the Church, but rather says that both the Church and the world should
orient themselves towards the coming kingdom. Furthermore, both Scripture and Vatican
Council II talk about the Church’s mission in the world and salvation in Jesus Christ. In
this sense, both absolutizing the Church (Tripole) and absolutely relativizing the Church
(Moltmann) can be problematic and can pervert the nature and goal of the Church’s
mission.
What is the proportional relation between the coming Church and the coming
kingdom? If Moltmann argues that the mark of the Church’s catholicity is related to the
1
M. R. TRIPOLE, “A Church for the Poor and the World: at Issue with Moltmann’s Ecclesiology”, p. 657.
2
Ibidem.
3
Ibid., p. 658. Because the Church is universal under the universal kingship of Christ, the Church has to
embrace all humanity, as Vatican Council II says: “This character of universality which adorns the People
of God is a gift from the Lord himself whereby the Catholic ceaselessly and efficaciously seeks for the
return of all humanity and all its goods under Christ the Head in the unity of his Spirit”(Lumen Gentium,
n.13). This statement only talks about the nature of the Church’s mission, which is universal.
426
lordship of Jesus Christ and has an eschatological dimension, the possibility of the
Church’s becoming the kingdom is not a priori excluded with the proviso that the coming
Church include all people.
Here I will try to propose a hypothesis; I do not want to talk about the relationship
between the present Church and the coming kingdom, but between the coming Church
and the coming kingdom. The central point is as to whether the coming Church can
become universal. Today many would argue that the future Church would only be one
part of the whole coming kingdom. The kingdom of God in its plenitude will be wider
than the Church. At the same time, all would agree that the kingdom of God in its
plenitude would be catholic, i.e. universal. In this sense, in my opinion, it is acceptable to
say that the Church anticipates the kingdom in the sense that it will become universal at
the end. The question is whether it can become universal. In other words, if at the end all
people become members of the coming Church, the Church is universal and thus the
kingdom.
Furthermore, Jesus has only one Body, in the metaphorical sense, which is the
Church, which should not disappear into the kingdom at the end. One should keep in
mind the principle: the coming kingdom will be universal; the question is whether this
kingdom and the coming Church will be the same. The Church can become the coming
kingdom as long as it becomes universal, which is possible. In order to be able to accept
this opinion, one has to see the coming Church from a different perspective than the
present pilgrim Church. In other words, the present Church will become the kingdom not
through the works of the Church itself, but through the power of the Spirit.
Of course, it is very clear that, for Moltmann, the kingdom of God also has
cosmic dimensions; while the Church, even in becoming universal is to comprise only
humanity without cosmic dimensions. In this sense, the Church can only be part of the
kingdom of God.
2.2. Problem areas
2.2.1. Patripassianism
Why did Jesus die on the cross? What was the nature of his suffering? According
to Moltmann, there are three possibilities of the nature of suffering: a fateful subjection to
427
suffering, and an active suffering, an incapacity to suffer. The third possibility represents
the Greek concept of God: God cannot suffer, while the second possibility is the suffering
of love.
According to Moltmann, God is able to suffer because He is able to love. If God
cannot suffer, He cannot love. Moltmann agrees with the Council of Nicea against Arius
who says that God is changeable. But Moltmann says that God can communicate himself;
God is capable of suffering not in the sense of creatures’ deficiency, but in the sense of
active suffering - the suffering of love: “If God is capable of loving something other than
himself, then he opens himself for the suffering which love for the other brings [...]. God
does not suffer out of deficiency of being, like created beings, but he does suffer from his
love, which is the overflowing superabundance of his being.”1
According to J. Moltmann, the fate of Jesus was in the hands of his Father, but his
Father abandoned him to death on the cross. However, God the Father did not abandon
Jesus to death for the sake of abandonment, but rather he suffered too with Jesus when he
let him die.
Moltmann says that we need to explain this episode in terms of the Trinity and
avoid the apathy axiom resulting from the metaphysical tradition of Greek philosophy
(God cannot suffer). In terms of the Trinity, both the Father and the Son decided on the
death of Jesus: “the Father as the one who abandons and gives up the Son, and the Son
who is abandoned by the Father and who gives himself up.”2 The key to correctly
understanding the death of Jesus on the cross is God’s ability to suffer. This is not fateful
suffering, but a suffering that is the consequence of love. Moltmann argues that if God is
capable of loving, he must be capable of suffering.3
1
J. MOLTMANN, Jesus Christ for Today’s World, p. 45; cf. The Crucified God, p. 237. After having
asserted that the divine nature in the eternal Son of God suffers (Theopaschism), Moltmann ends up
arguing that the Father also suffers (Patripassianism) (cf. The Crucified God, p. 235-258).
2
J. B. METZ and J. MOLTMANN, Faith and the Future, p. 96; cf. p. 123-130.
3
Cf. ibid., p. 127. In condemning the teaching of patripassianism also called Sabellianism of the 3rd A.D,
the council of Rome Tome of Damasus in 382 declared: “If anyone says that in the passion of the cross it is
God himself who felt the pain and not the flesh and the soul which Christ, the Son of God, had taken to
himself - the form of servant which he had accepted as Scripture says (cf. Phil. 2:7) - he is mistaken” (DS.
166), cf. J. Dupuis, ed., The Christian Faith, Bangalore, India: Theological Publications, 1996, p. 195).
Here the council of Rome does not have intention of denying the suffering of God, but focuses on the
suffering of Jesus Christ, affirming that Jesus, with his flesh and soul, really suffered the passion of the
cross, condemning those who deny that Jesus Christ truly suffered. In this sense, Moltmann does not say
anything contrary to the teaching of the council of Rome. Furthermore, in my view, the term
428
Furthermore, according to Moltmann, not only Jesus Christ suffers, but also the
Father and the Holy Spirit suffer. Because in the perichoresis community of the Trinity, if
One suffers, the Others suffer too.1 Since, the perichoresis Trinitarian community of God
is open to the community of creatures, God has necessarily to suffer with creatures,
which includes human beings, animals and the rest of nature.2 In addition, the passibility
of God shared with the creature community is also based on Moltmann’s eschatology,
which argues that because creatures open to the coming as their goal, and in order for
them to reach that goal, God, in the Spirit who indwells in creatures, has to accompany
them by suffering with them.3
While the passianism of the historical Jesus Christ is indisputable, the passianism
of God the Father is problematic. Clearly, many theologians disagree with Moltmann on
his theory of the Patripassianism. Metz writes that Rahner “resists any attempt to get
around human suffering by grasping it as God’s suffering and sharing of suffering.
Despite the highly respectable attempts in contemporary Catholic as well as Protestant
theology - in Karl Barth and Eberhard Jüngel, in Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Jürgen
Moltmann, and in Rahner’s Catholic colleague, Hans Urs von Balthasar - nowhere has he
joined in this discourse about the suffering God, about suffering between God and God,
about suffering in God. He has explicitly emphasized that Christology neither requires
nor authorizes theology to talk about a suffering God.”4
Although Meyendorff, an Orthodox, accepting Theopaschism, says that
“Theopaschism was formally endorsed by the Fifth Ecumenical Counci (553 A.D.) and is
solemnly proclaimed at each eucharistic celebration in the Orthodox Church,”5 he refuses
Moltmann’s Patripassianism : “Theopaschism - the concept of the Son of God suffering
in the flesh - does not become Patripassiamism.”6
‘patripassianism’ assigned to the object of the teaching of this council is not apposite. See this thesis, on
pages 40 and 241.
1
2
Cf. ibid., p.253.
3
Cf. R. BAUCKHAM, The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann, p. 188-189; J. MOLTMANN, The Crucified God, p.
254-255.
4
J. B. METZ, A Passion for God, p. 118; cf. K. RAHNER, Karl Rahner in Dialogue: Conversations and
Interviews, 1965-1982, New York: Crossroad, 1986, p. 126f.
5
J. MAYENDORFF, “Reply to J. Moltmann’s ‘The Unity of the Triune God’” in St. Vladimir’s Theological
Quarterly 28, 1984/3, p. 183-188, at 186.
6
Ibidem.
429
2.2.2. Open invitation to the Lord’s Table

Moltmann asserts that the Lord invites all human beings to his banquet. This open
invitation has no boundary; Christians and non-Christians can come, and no Church has
authority to set up rules and conditions for admission.1 His argument is based on the fact
that it is the Lord’s supper, not the Church’s. The Lord gathers his people into the Church
for fellowship with him and with one another: there are two reasons for the open
invitation to the Lord’s Supper: 1) Jesus allowed sinners and tax collectors to sit at the
same table with him. 2) It is also the open invitation to reconciliation with God (cf. I Cor.
11:27). In this sense, all sinners and the non-baptized are also invited.2
Moltmann is praised for his strong and convincing Christological arguments
regarding the open invitation of the Lord to his Table for the Church’s unity. However,
he may be commiting an error in going too far with this ‘open invitiation’.
Indeed, Moltmann, referring to Pannenberg, Thesen zur Theologie der Kirche
(1970), says that Christ’s invitation to the Lord’s Table is open not only to the Church but
also to the world.3 On this point, Moltmann wants to follows Pannenberg, but Pannenberg
says Moltmann has not grasped his meaning. In other words, according to Pannenberg,
admission to the Lord’s Supper is open only to Christians. Pennenberg says: “I do indeed
speak there of an openness to all beyond the original band of disciples. But the issue in
that context is not the practice of admission to communion but the openness of table
fellowship with Jesus for tax collectors and sinners as this bears on the Church’s later
mission to the Gentiles.”4
2.2.3. The problem of overemphasizing Christo-centrism

Overemphasis on Christo-centrism leads Moltmann’s ecclesiology to extremes,
when he says: “the Church cannot be anything other than the council of believers.”5 This
causes at least two problems: the structure of the Church, namely the role of the
hierarchy, and ecumenism.
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Open Church, p. 87-88; The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 244-246.
2
Cf. ibid., p. 259-260.
3
Cf. ibid., p. 246,
4
W. PANNENBERG, Systematic Theology, vol 3, p. 329; cf. Thesen zur Theologie der Kirche, p. 35
5
430
Firstly, in arguing that in the Church Jesus Christ is the Lord of all believers, the
hierarchy is reduced in status. As Moltmann says: “it is only because the community
gathers together for the proclamation of the gospel and for the fellowship of hearing the
Word, here finding its unity in Christ, that the commissioned preacher can be charged
with further services which will contribute to its unity.”1 For Moltmann, because ubi
Christus, ibi Ecclesia, only Christ is the head of the Church. He says: “The bishop of
Rome is our venerable and important brother of Christ, but he is not the ‘head of the
Church’. For the Churches of Christ, Christ alone is the head.”2 This overemphasis on
Christo-centrism degrades the hierarchy and ordained ministries to the level of common
ministries that any Christian can assume. Furthermore, the Church’s unity is at risk
without hierarchy.
Secondly, emphasizing Christo-centrism over the ecclesial dimension and being
overeager for Church unity can cause self-satisfaction. By self-satisfaction I mean that
the various denominational Churches fail to make further efforts, maintaining their status-
quo, because they are content that they are already united with one another in Christ,
despite the fact that they are not yet united as one Church. The separated Churches rely
on the Christological perspective and console themselves that they are already united in
Jesus Christ, but prefer to disregard the ecclesiological perspective, which reveals these
Churches as still very divided. They say that they are not really divided although they are
not yet united. This perception can cause the divided Churches to cease further efforts in
ecumenism.
3. EVOLUTION
3.1. From Christological to Pneumatological perspectives

Moltmann developed his theology gradually. This affirmation is born out by his
having published his systematic theology over three decades. His trilogy consists of
Theology of Hope (1966), The Crucified God (1973), The Church in the Power of the
Spirit (1975). He acknowledges that at first he did not have a systematic plan; his focus
was different in each period: “in 1964 that focus was the hope born from the resurrection
1
Ibid., p. 310.
2
J. MOLTMANN, “The Church as Communion”, p.137.
431
of Christ; in 1972 it was the suffering in which the fellowship of the Crucified One is
experienced, and in 1975 it was the experience of the divine Spirit, the giver of life.”1
Later on, Moltmann published many other books, among them two books on the
theology of the Holy Spirit: only in 1991 (The Spirit of Life) and 1997 (The Source of
Life). While he had earlier based himself on the Christocentric concept of the Church in
order to argue against the monarchical vision of the Church and to support inter-religious
and ecumenical dialogues, in the two volumes on the Spirit, Moltmann accuses the
Christocentric concept of the Church for its sexual discrimination. Now he argues that not
Christ, but the Holy Spirit is the liberator of women: “Neither the patriarchal nor the
Christocentric concept of the Church has any expectation that the Spirit will be
experienced by men and women together, and both repress the Pentecostal experience of
the early Church.”2
In order to use the theology of the Spirit to support feminist theology, Moltmann
blames Christocentric ecclesiology for excluding women from ordained ministries,
saying: “in the Churches of the Reformation, the Christocentric concept of the Churches
is dominant: just as God is ‘the head’ of Christ, so Christ is ‘the head’ of the Church, and
accordingly the man is destined to be the ‘head’ of the woman (I Cor. 11). This
Christocentric dogma also led to the exclusion of women from the ministry or ‘spiritual
office’.”3
Moltmann praises the early Christian communities for their charismatic life due to
their reception of the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. Women were in charge of important
roles in the primitive communities and the Churches of today should follow their
examples: “The ordination of women is not a matter of adaptation to changed social
conditions. It has to do with new life from the beginnings of the Christian Churches: life
out of the fellowship of the Hoy Spirit.”4 However, as we know that in these early
Christian communities, there was no women ordination; why does Moltmann not
question about the absence of women ordination in these communities? In my judgement,
1
MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. XV.
2
MOLTMANN, The Source of Life, p. 101.
3
Ibid., p. 100-101.
4
Ibid., p. 101-102.
432
even if one argues that the ordination of women is appropriate at this time in history, its
absence has not been due to a Christocentric concept of the Church.
The problem is that in relying solely on Pneumatology for the cause of women
ordination, Moltmann rejects Christocentric theology. Does this indicate that by the
nineties, when Moltmann published his two volumes on the Holy Spirit, he had forgotten
about the past Christocentric theological argument that had centred his earlier volumes?
Could this have been an evolution in Moltmann’s theology? In my view, there is a
theological evolution in Moltmann’s theology. Indeed, earlier in his career, Moltmann
had based himself on a Christocentric ecclesiology in order to argue for the renewal of
the Church, which necessarily entails the ordination of women. Later on, he continued to
advocate for women ordination, but this time he based it on Pneumatological
ecclesiology.
I doubt that the practice of the exclusion of women from ministry and hierarchy
originates in Christocentric ecclesiology. On the contrary, a Christocentric concept of the
Church should advocate equal rights and charges for men and women, as Moltmann
argues ubiquitously. I think both Moltmann’s Pneumatology and Christocentric theology
already support women ordination. Neither the Christocentric nor the Pneumatological
ecclesiology is exclusive, yet the two necessarily complement one another. From this
viewpoint, the absolute evolution was unnecessary. Therefore, Moltmann can remain
consistent in his Christocentric argument even if he changes the paradigm from the
Christocentric to the Pneumatological ecclesiology.
3.2. Ecological and liberation aspects

In the early stages of his career, Moltmann had not included ecology in his
trilogy. Even in his later book The Trinity and the Kingdom of God (1980), this topic was
barely touched. Only in the late 80s did he systematically incorporate ecological theology
into his ecclesiology, as described in the following principle books: God in Creation
(1985), The Way of Jesus Christ (1989), The Spirit of Life (1991), The Coming God
(1995) and The Source of Life (1997).
In fact, Moltmann acknowledged this evolution when, in 1989, he wrote the
Postscript for the second edition (1992) of The Church in the Power of the Spirit. The
433
cosmic dimension of the Church had not been treated earlier, but discussed thoroughly in
the book God in Creation.1 E. T. Charry comments: “The second half of his career
brought a new set of organizing concerns. The ecological crisis led Moltmann to see that
Christianity’s focus on God’s presence in history siphoned concern away from nature. He
has seen the ecological crisis, the crisis of the cities, and deleterious effects of technology
as related to concerns voiced by feminists, black theologians, and other liberation
movement. They all unite under the broad general theme of emancipation from
dominion.”2
Furthermore, Moltmann also admits that, together with the cosmic dimension,
another aspect was also added to his theological consideration in the second half of his
career, which is the ‘fellowship between men and women’ in the Church; femininist
theology relates to this dimension. This liberation aspect is included in his two books:
God-His and Her (1991) and History of the Triune God (1991).3 In other words, in the
second half of his career, Moltmann brought his concerns over the ecological and
liberation aspect in his theology and ecclesiology to the fore.
GENERAL CONCLUSION
Moltmann’s proposal for a Church reformation is motivated by many factors: in
some periods of history, the Church and the state intermingled politically; at other times
they dominated one another. In recent history, there has been a tendency toward
separation of Church and state. But there have been always co-operation between the two
in the areas of social care and development. Today we live in a secular society where
some states carry out immoral, unjust, and inhuman practices; for example, in many
countries, there is no respect for religious freedom, human rights or nature, etc. In this
context, many would raise the question as to how the Church should relate to states and
get involved in society.
Many Churches and Christians desire Christian unity. In some Churches, there is
a crisis in Church attendance. In the last few decades, many new Christian movements
have emerged, and the laity wants to assume more responsibility in the Church. In this
1
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. XVII.
2
E. T. CHARRY, “The Crisis of Modernity and the Christian Self”, p. 90.
3
Cf. J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. XVII; History and the Triune God, p. 1-18;
E. MOLTMANN-WENDEL and J. MOLTMANN, God - His and Hers, p. 1-16.
434
context, the question of whether the Church is overly hierarchical and less participatory
has also been raised. How and what should the Church reform within itself?
Being conscious of the history of the Church and the present situation, we
acknowledge the urgency of reviewing the fundamental conception of Christ’s Church
and fostering Church renewal.
Moltmann has proposed the Church’s reform, which has to be based on a theology
of hope centring on the history of Jesus and on its relationship with the history of God’s
dealing with the world, i.e., the Church is necessarily Christo-centric and Theo-centric:
1) With regard to its Christocentric characteristics, the quest for Church
reformation requires a correct understanding of Christology: Jesus Christ’s history
includes not only his death and resurrection, but also his coming. It is the whole history
of Jesus Christ that gives hope to the Church, its members and the world. In this sense,
the Church, in its self-reformation, needs to refer back to its root and vocation, as
founded in Jesus Christ. The Church always binds itself to hope in the future, which
enables it to fulfil its mission in the present.
When the Church realizes that it is of Jesus Christ, it will be able to found the
theology of the marks of the Church (one, holy, catholic and apostolic) on Christology.
The unity of the Churches will be realized only if all Churches hold on to Jesus Christ as
the principle, foundation and source of the Church.
Furthermore, realizing that in the Church of Jesus Christ people receive the
charismata from the Holy Spirit, the Church needs to renew itself so that it reflects its
nature as a Church, not of itself, but of Jesus Christ who restores the ‘sonship’ of God to
all its members. With this reform, the laity will be enabled to participate and contribute
fully and actively in the life of the Church; the Church will not remain the Church for
people, but become a Church of people.
2) With regard to the Theo-centric, because the Church realizes that its mission is
missio Dei, it needs to fulfil its mission within the broader mission of God in the world
and live in the relational framework with the rest of the world. For Moltmann, the
Church’s mission ultimately is the affirmation of life, through the practice of liberation
for human beings and the rest of creatures, including nature. Only within the context of
the Trinitarian history of God’s dealing with the world, can the Church fulfill its mission.
435
It realizes that in the universal plan of the Trinity’s relationship with the world, there are
also many other movements, religions, and secular organizations, which can collaborate
with the Church in the promotion of the kingdom. The mission of the Son and the Holy
Spirit towards the kingdom includes, but is not confined to, the Church.
Within the framework of the history of God’s plan for universal salvation, the
Church, in its participation in the inter-religious dialogue, acknowledges the existence of
salvific values in other religions. Therefore, it should not “maintain its special power and
its special charges with absolute and self-destructive claims. It then has not need to look
sideways in suspicion or jealousy at the saving efficacies of the Spirit outside the Church;
instead it can recognize them thankfully as signs that the Spirit is greater than the Church
and that God’s purpose of salvation reaches beyond the Church.”1
In conclusion, we can say that it is with the Christocentric and Theocentric
orientations, rather than the ecclesio-centric, that the Church will be able to actualize
hope in the future of the coming kingdom in the present world, fulfilling its mission in
collaborating with others, according to the history of God’s relationship with the world.
We can refer to Moltmann’s statement, which well recapitulates his views of an
ecclesiology that is eschatological and messianic: “Thus Christianity is to be understood
as the community of those who on the ground of the resurrection of Christ wait for the
kingdom of God and whose life is determined by this expectation. If, however, the
Christian Church is thus oriented towards the future of the Lord, and receives itself and
its own nature always only in expectation and hope from the coming of the Lord who is
ahead of it, then its life and suffering, its word and action in the world and upon the
world, must also be determined by the open foreland of its hopes for the world.”2
1
J. MOLTMANN, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 64-65.
2
436
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I- Works by Jürgen Moltmann

1. Books
- Anfänge der dialektischen Theologie, Teil 1, München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1966.
- Conversion à l’avenir, Paris: Éd. du Seuil, 1975.
- Creating a Just Future: The Politics of Peace and the Ethics of Creation in a
Threatened World, London: SCM Press, 1989.
- El lenguaje de la liberación, Salamanca: Sigueme, 1974.
- Experiences in Theology, London: SCM Press, 2000 (trans. from the German Erfahrung
theologischen Denkens, Gütersloh : Christian Kaiser Verlag/Gütersloher Verlagshaus,
1999).
- Gerechtigkeit schafft Zukunft. Friedenspolitik und Schöfungsethik in einer bedrohen
Welt, München: Chr. Kaiser; Mainz:Matthias-Grünewalt, 1989.
- God for a Secular Society, London: SCM Press, 1999 (trans by M. Kohl from the
German Gott im Projekt der modernen Welt. Beiträge zur öffentlichen Relevanz der
Theologie, Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser/Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 1997).
- God in Creation: An ecological doctrine of creation, London: SCM Press, 1985(trans.
by M. Kohl from the German Gott in der Schöpfung: Ökologische Schöpfungslehre,
Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1985).
- Gott im Projekt der modernen Welt: Beiträge zur öffentlichen Relevanz der Theologie,
Gütersloh: Kaiser-Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 1997.
- History and the Triune God, New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1992
(trans. by J. Bowden from the German In der Geschichte des dreieinigen Gottes. Beiträge
zur trinitarischen Theologie, Munich : Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1991).
- Hope and Planning, London: SCM Press, 1971 (trans by Margaret Clarkson from the
German Perspektiven der Theologie: Gesammelte Aufsätze, München: Chr. Kaiser
Verlag/Mainz: Matthias-Grünewalt Verlag, 1968).
437
- How I have Changed, Reflections on Thirty Years of Theology, London: SCM Press,
1997.
- Human Identity in Christian Faith, Standford: Standford University Press, 1974.
- Im Gespräch mit Ernst Bloch : Eine theologische Wegbeleitung, Munich: Chr. Kaiser,
1976.
- In der Geschichte des dreieinigen Gottes. Beiträge zur trinitarischen Theologie,
München: Kaiser, 1991.
- Jesus Christ for Today’s World, London: SCM Press, 1994 (trans. by M. Kohl from the
German Wer is Christus für uns heute?, Gütersloh: Kaiser Verlag, 1994).
- Jésus, le messie de Dieu, Paris : Cerf, 1993 (trans by J. Hoffmann).
- Jewish Monotheism and Christian Trinitarian Doctrine. A Dialogue by Pinchas Lapide
and J. Moltmann, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.
- L’homme. Essai d’anthropologie chrétienne, Paris : Cerf et Mame, 1974.
- La giustizia crea futuro, Brescia: Queriniana, 1990 (trans by D. Pezzetta from the
German Geschichtigkeit schafft Zukunft, Kaiser Verlag, München, 1989).
- Le Seigneur de la danse, Essai sur la joie d’être libre, Paris : Éd. du Cerf-Mame, 1972.
- Le venue de Dieu: Eschatologie chrétienne, Paris: Cerf, 2000.
- Man, Christian Anthropology in the Conflicts of the Present, Philadelphia: Fortress,
1974.
- On Human Dignity: Political Theology and Ethics, London: SCM Press, 1984.
- Prospettive della teologia. Saggi, Brescia: Queriniana, 1974.
- Religion, Revolution, and the Future, New York: Charles Scribner’s, 1969.
- The Church in the Power of the Holy Spirit, London: SCM Press, 1977, trans. by M.
Kohl from the German Kirche in der Kraft des Geistes, Munich: Kaiser Verlag, 1975.
- The Coming God, London: SCM Press, 1996 (trans by M. Kohl from the German Das
Kommen Gottes, Gütersloher: Chr. Kaiser Verlaghaus, 1995).
- The Crucified God, London: SCM Press, 1974 (trans. by R.A. Wilson and J. Bowden
from the German Der gekreuzigte Gott, Munich: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1973).
- The Experiment Hope, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.
- The Future of Creation, London: SCM Press, 1979.
- The Gospel of Liberation, Waco, Texas: Word Books, p. 1973.
438
- The Open Church, London: SCM Press, 1978 (trans. by M. D. Meeks from the German
Neuer Lebenstil. Schritte zur Gemeinde, Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1977).
- The Passion for Life. A Messianic Lifestyle, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978.
- The Power of the Powerless, London: SCM Press, 1983.
- The Source of Life. The Holy Spirit and the Theology of Life, London: SCM Press, 1997
(trans. by M. Kohl from the German Die Qwelle des Lebens. Der Heilige Geist und die
Theologie des Lebens, Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser/Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 1997).
- The Spirit of Life, London: SCM Press, 1992 (trans by M. Kohl from the German Der
Geist des Lebens, Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1991).
- The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, London: SCM Press, 1981 (trans. by Margaret
Kohl from the German, Trinität und Reich Gottes, Christian Kaiser Verlag, Munich
1980).
- The Way of Jesus Christ, London: SCM Press, 1990 (trans by M. Kohl from the German
Der Weg Jesu Christi, Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1989).
- Theology and Joy, London: SCM press, 1973.
- Theology of Hope, London: SCM Press, 1967 (trans. by J. W. Leitch from the German
Theologie der Hoffnung, Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1965).
- Theology Today, London: SCM Press, 1988.
- Umkehr zur Zukunft, Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1970.
- Un nouveau style de vie, Paris : Éd. du Centurion, 1984.
- Wer is Christus für uns heute? Gütersloh: Kaiser-Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1994.
2. Articles and chapters

- ‘A Christian Declaration on Human Rights’ in Reformed World 34, 1976, p. 58-72.
- ‘A Response to my Pentecostal Dialogue Partners’ in Journal of Pentecostal Theology
4, 1994, p. 59-70.
- ‘All Things New: Invited to God’s Future’ in Asbury Theological Journal 48, 1993, p.
29-38.
- ‘An Ecumenical Assembly for Peace’ in Concilium, 1988/I, p. XVII-XVIII.
- ‘Antwort auf die Kritik an “Der geckreuzigte Got”’, in M. WELKER (ed.), Diskussion
über Jürgen Moltmanns Buch “Der gekreuzigte Gott”, Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1979, p.
165-190.
439
- ‘Anwort auf die Kritik der “Theologie der Hoffnung”’ in W. D. MARSCH (ed.)
Diskussion über die ‘Die Theologie der Hoffnung’ von Jürgen Moltmann, Munich: Chr.
Kaiser, 1967, p. 201- 237.
- ‘Behold, I make all things new’: The Category of the New in Christian Theology’ in M.
MUCHENHIRN (ed.), The Future as the Presence of Shared Hope, New York: Sheed &
Ward, 1968, p. 9-33.
- ‘Can there be an Ecumenical Mariology? in Concilium 168, 1983, p. XII-XV.
- ‘Christ in Cosmic Context’ in H. D. REGAN and A. J. TORRANCE (eds), Christ and
Context: The Confrontation between Gospel and Culture, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993,
p. 180-191, 205-209.
- ‘Christian Discipleship in a Nuclear World’ in B. MCSWEENEY (ed.), Ireland and the
Threat of Nuclear War, Dublin: Dominican Publications, 1985, p. 104-118.
- ‘Christian Theology and Political Religion’ in L. S. ROUNER (ed.), Civil Religion and
Political Theology, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986, p. 41-58.
- ‘Christianity in the Third Millennium’ in Theology Today 51, 1994, p. 75-89.
- ‘Christliche Hoffnung: Messianisch oder transzendent? Ein theologisches Gespräche
mit Joachim von Fiore und Thomas von Aquin’ in Münchener Theologischer Zeitschrift
33, 1982, p. 241-260.
- ‘Christologie - die paulinische Mitte: Bemerkungen zu Georg Eichholz’ Paulus
interpretation’ in Evangelische Theologie 34, 1974, p. 196-200.
- ‘Come, Creator Spirit, and Renew Life: A Theological Meditation on the “Life-Giving
Spirit”’ in Louvain Studies 22, 1997, p. 3-14.
- ‘Commentary on ‘To Bear Arms’’ in R. A. EVANS and A. F. EVANS, Human Rights: A
Dialogue between the First and Third Worlds, New York: Orbis Books, 1983, p. 48-52.
- ‘Community of Faith and Radical Discipleship; An Interview with Jürgen Moltmann
(interviewed by M. Volf)’ in Christian Century 100, 1983, p. 246-249.
- ‘Covenant or Leviathan? Political Theology for Modern Times’ in Scottish Journal of
Theology 47, 1994, p. 19-41.
- ‘Creation and Redemption’ in R.W.A. MCKINNEY (ed.), Creation, Christ and Culture.
Study in Honour of T. F. Torrance, Edinburgh: Clark, 1976, p. 119-134.
440
- ‘Der Gott, auf den ich hoffe’ in W. JENS (ed.), Warum ich Christ bin, 2ed., München:
Kindler, 1979, p. 264-280.
- ‘Descent into Hell’ in Duke Divinity School Review 33, 1968, p. 115-119.
- ‘Dialog oder Mission? Das Christentum und die Religionem in einer gefährdeten Welt’
in R. WETH (ed.), Bekenntnis zu dem einen Gott? Christen und Muslime zwischen
Mission und Dialog, Neukirchen - Vluyn, Neuchirchener, 2000, p, 36-49.
- ‘Die Befreiung der Unterdrücker’ in Evangelical Theologie 38, 1978, p. 527-537.
- ‘Die Bibel und das Patriarchat: Offene Fragen zur Diskussion über Feminische
Theologie’ in Evangelische Theologie 42, 1982, p. 480-484.
- ‘Die Entdeckung der Anderen: Zur Theorie des kommunikativen Erkennens’ in
Evangelische Theologie 50, 1990, p. 400-414.
- ‘Die moderne Gesellschaft und die Zukunft’ in Revue d’histoire et de philosophie
religieuses 69, 1989, p. 11-24.
- ‘Die ökumenische Veranwortung der Kirchen für die Welt von heute. Bekenntnis zu
Christus heute’ in Una Sancta 31, 1976, p. 44-47.
- ‘Die Rechtfertigung Gottes’ in Stimmen der Zeit 219, 2001, p. 435-442.
- ‘Dient die “pluralistische Theologie“ dem Dialog der Weltreligionen?’ in Evang. Theol.
49, 1989, p. 528-536.
- ‘Die Zukunft des Christentums’ in Evangelische Theologie 63, 2003, p. 110-126.
- ‘El Espíritu Santo y la teología de la vida’ in Isidorianum 7, 1998, p. 351-366.
- ‘End of Utopia - End of History?’ in Concilium, 1994/2, p. 134-136.
- ‘Ernst Blochs Christologie’ in Evangelische Theologie 64, 2004, p. 5-19.
- ‘Europäische Kulturpolitik: Werden die Theologischen Fakultäten geopfert?’ in Evang.
Theol. 59, 1999, p. 84-87.
- ‘Fundamentalism as an Ecumenical Challenge’ in Concilium, 1992/3, p. I-XIII.
- ‘Gedanken zur “trinitarischen Geschichte Gottes”’ in Evang. Theol. 35, 1975, p. 208-
222.
- ‘Gesichtspunkte der Kreuzestheologie heute’ in Evang. Theol. 33, 1973, p. 346-365.
- ‘God and the Nuclear Catastrophe’ in Pacifica 1, 1988, p. 157-170.
- ‘God Means Freedom’ in H. J. YOUNG (ed.), God and Human Freedom, Richmond,
Indiana: Howard Thurman Festschrift, 1983, p. 10-22.
441
- ‘God’s Kenosis in the Creation and Consummation of the World’ in J. C.

POLKINGHORNE (ed.), The Work of Love, Grand Rapids, MI - Cambridge: Eerdmans;
London: SPCK, 2001, p. 173-151.
- ‘God’s Kingdom as the Meaning of Life and of the World’ in H. KÜNG, J. MOLTMANN
(eds), Why did God make me?, New York: Seabury Press, 1978. p. 97-103.
- ‘God’s Protest Against Death’ in F. THATCHER (ed.), The Miracle of Easter, Waco,
Texas: Word Books, 1980, p. 69-77.
- ‘Has the Papacy an Ecumenical Future’ in Concilium 168, 1995/5, p. 135-137.
- ‘Hope’ in A. RICHARDSON and J. BOWDEN (eds), A New Dictionary of Christian
Theology, London: SCM Press, p. 270-272.
- ‘Hope and the Biomedical Future of Man’ in E. H. COUSINS (ed.), Hope and the Future
of man, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972, p. 89-105.
- ‘Hope Beyond Time’, in Duke Divinity School Review 33, 1968, p. 109-114.
- ‘Hope in the Struggle of the People’ in Christianity and Crisis 37, 1977, p. 49-55.
- ‘Human Rights, the Rights of Humanity and the Rights of Nature’ in Concilium,
1990/1, p. 120-134.
- ‘Ich glaube an Gott den Vater: Patriarchalische oder nichtpatriarchalische Rede von
Gott?’ in Evangelische Theologie 43, 1983, p. 397-415.
- ‘Iesus Christus - Gottes Gerechtigkeit in der Welt der Opfer un Täter’ in Stimmen der
Zeit 219, 2001, p. 507-519.
- ‘In Search for an Equilibrium of Equilibrium and Progress’ in Ching Feng 30, 1987, p.
5-17.
- ‘Introduction à la théologie de l’espérance’ in Études Théologiques et Religieuses 46,
1971, p. 399-414.
- ‘Introduction’ in E. BLOCH, Man on his Own: Essays in the Philosophy of Religion,
New York: Herder & Herder, 1970, p. 19-29.
- ‘Is the World Coming to an End or Has Its Future already begun? Christian
Eschatology, Modern Utopianism and Extermimsm’ in D. A. S. FERGUSSON - M. SAROT
(eds), The Future as God’s Gift, Edinburgh: Clark, 2000, p. 129-138.
- ‘Jesus and the Kingdom of God’ in Asbury Theological Journal 48, 1993, p. 5-18.
- ‘Jesus zwischen Juden und Christen’ in Evang. Theol. 55, 1995, p. 49-63.
442
- ‘Kind und Kindheit als Metaphem der Hoffnung’ in Evang. Theol. 60, 2000, p. 92-102.
- ‘L’espérance sans Foi’ in Concilium 16, 1966, p. 45-58.
- ‘La cuestion de la compassion e impassibilidad de Dios’ in Carthaginensia 8, 1992, p.
657-659.
- ‘La passion de Cristo y el dolor de Dios’ in Carthaginensia 8, 1992, p. 642-655.
- ‘La religion de l’espérance’ in Études Théologiques et Religieuses 46, 1971, p. 385-398
(trans by L. Rimbault and H. Schoenbals).
- ‘La société moderne A-t-elle un avenir?’ in Concilium 227, 1990, p. 59-70.
- ‘Le rôle du théologique dans le projet de la modernité’ in Revue de Théologie et de
Philosophie 128, 1996, p. 49-65.
- ‘Le royaume de Dieu, sens de la vie et du monde’ in Concilium 128, 1977, p. 121-128.
- ‘Liberating and Anticipating the Future’ in M. A. FARLEY - S. JONES (eds), Liberating
Eschatology. Essays in Honor of Letty M. RussellLouisville KY: Westminster John Knox,
1999, p. 189-208.
- ‘Liberating Feast’ in Concilium 10, 1974, p. 74-84.
- ‘Liberation in the light of hope’ in Ecumenical Review 26, 1974, p. 415-429.
- ‘Liberation through Reconciliation’ in J. W. COX (ed.), The Twentieth Century Pulpit,
vol. 2, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1981, p. 118-136.
- ‘Man and the Son of Man’ in J. R. NELSON (ed.), No Man is Alien: Essays on the Unity
of Mankind, Leidon: E. J. Brill, 1971, p. 203-224.
- ‘Messianic Atheism’ in L. S. ROUNER (ed.), Knowing Religiously, Notre Dame, Indiana:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1985, p. 192-206.
- ‘Messianic Hope in Christianiy’ in Concilium 7, 1977, p. 155-161.
- ‘Messianism through History’ in Concilium, 1993/1, p. 136-138.
- ‘Nachwort’ in P. F. MOMOSE, Kreuzestheologie: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Jürgen
Moltmann, Freiburg / Basel / Vienna: Herder, 1978, p. 174-183.
- ‘Niño e infancia como metáforas de la esperanza y de la fe’ in Carthaginensia 16, 2000,
p. 15-28.
- ‘Ökologie’ in Theologische Realenzyklopädie 25, 1995, p.36-46.
- ‘Ökumene im Zeitalter der Globalisierung: Die Enzyklika ‘Ut unum Sint’ in
evangelischer Sicht’ in Evang. Theol. 58, 1998, p. 262-269.
443
- ‘Peace: The Fruit of Justice’ in H. KÜNG and J. MOLTMANN (eds), A Council for Peace,
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988, p. 109-120.
- ‘Pentecost and the Theology of Life’ in Concilium, 1996/3, p. 123-134.
- ‘Périchosèse : Un mot magique de l’Antiquité pour une nouvelle théologie trinitaire’ in
Rev. de l’Inst. cath. de Paris (Transversalité) 76, 2000, p. 145-161.
- ‘Perseverance’ in A. RICHARDSON and J. BOWDON (eds), A New Dictionary of Christian
Theology, London: SCM Press, 1983, p. 441-442.
- ‘Perseveranz’ in Theologische Realenzyklopädie 26, 1996, p. 217-220.
- ‘Politics and the Practice of Hope’ in Christian Century 87, 1970, p. 288-291.
- ‘Predigt zu Psalm 82’ in Evang. Theol. 61, 2001, p. 147-153.
- ‘Problemen und Chancen der Mission heute’ in Evang. Theol. 34, 1974, p. 409.
- ‘Progress and Abyss: Remembering the Future of the Modern World’ in Review and
Expositor 97, 2000, p. 301-314.
- ‘Protest and Celebration’ in One World 15, 1976, p. 14-17.
- ‘Racism and the right to resist’ in Study Encounter 21, 1972, p. 1-10.
- ‘Reconciliation with Nature’ in Pacifica 5, 1992, p. 301-313.
- ‘Reformation and Revolution’ in M. HOFFMAN (ed.), Martin Luther and the Modern
Mind, Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1985, p. 163-190.
- ‘Religion and State in Germany - West and East’ in Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science 483, 1986, p. 110-118.
- ‘Response to the Essays’ in The Asbury Theological 55, 2000, p. 128-134.
- ‘Response’ in J. MOLTMANN, M. D. MEEKS, R. J. HUNTER, J. W. FOWLER, N. L.
ERSKINE, Hope for the Church: Moltmann in dialogue with Practical Theology,
Nashville: Abingdon, 1979, p. 128-136.
- ‘Resurrection as Hope’ in Harvard Theological Review 61, 1968, p. 129-147.
- ‘Resurrection: The Ground, Power and Goal of our Hope’ in Concilium, 1999/5, p. 81-
89.
- ‘Schöpfung im Horizont der Zeit’ in Evang. Theol. 52, 1992, p. 86-92.
- ‘Schöpfung, Bund und Herrlichkeit : Zur Diskussion über Karl Barths
Schöpfungslehre’ in Evangelische Theologie 48, 1988, p. 108-127.
- ‘Science and Wisdom’ in Theol. Today 58, 2001, p. 155-164.
444
- ‘Situación de la teología al final del siglo XX’ in Carthaginensia 15, 1999, p. 247-250.
- ‘Speranza cristiana: messianica o transcententale?’ in Asprena 30, 1983, p. 23-46.
- ‘Stations et signaux. Coup d’œil rétrospectif sur mon cheminement personnel des dix
dernières années’ in Études théologiques et religieuses 46, 1971/4, p. 357-363.
- ‘Teología política y teología de la liberación’ in Carthaginensia 8, 1992, p. 489-501.
- ‘Teresa of Avila and Martin Luther: The turn to the mysticism of the cross’ in Studies in
Religion/Sciences Religieuses 13, 1984, p. 265-278.
- ‘The Alienation and Liberation of Nature’ in L. ROUNER (ed.), On Nature, Indiana:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1984, p. 133-144.
- ‘The Church as Communion’ in Concilium, 1993/1, p. 136-138.
- ‘The Confession of Jesus Christ: A Biblical Theological Consideration’ in Concilium
118, 1978, p. 13-19.
- ‘The Cosmic Community: A New Ecological Concept of Reality in Science and
Religion’ in Ching Feng 29, 1986, p. 93-105.
- ‘The Cross and Civil Religion’ in J. MOLTMANN, H. W. RICHARDSON, J. B. METZ, W.
OELMÜLLER, M. D. BRYANT, Religion and Political Society, New York: Harper & Row,
1974, p. 9-47.
- ‘The Crucified God: A Trinitarian Theology of the Cross’ in Interpretation 26, 1972, p.
278-299.
- ‘The Crucified God: God and the Trinity Today’ in Concilium 8/6, 1972, p. 26-37.
- ‘The Crucified God’ in Interpretation 26, 1972, p. 278-299.
- ‘The Diaconal Church in the Context of the Kingdom of God’ in J. MOLTMANN, M. D.
MEEKS, R. J. HUNTER, J. W. FOWLER, N. L. ERKINE, Hope for the Church: Moltmann in
Dialogue with Practical Theology, Nashville: Abingdon, 1979, p. 21-36.
- ‘The Ecological Crisis: Peace with Nature?’ in Colloquium 20, 1988, p. 1-11 (also in
Scottish Journal of Religious Studies 9, 1988, p.5-18).
- ‘The ecumenical Church under the cross’ in Theological Digest 24, 1976, p. 380-389.
- ‘The End of Everything is God: Has Belief in Hell Had Its Day?’ in The Expository
Times 108, 1996-97, p. 263-264.
- ‘The Expectation of His Coming’ in Theology 88, 1985, p. 425-428.
445
- ‘The Fellowship of the Holy Spirit Trinitarian Pneumatology’ in Scot. Journ. of Theol.
37, 1984, p. 287-300.
- ‘The Future As Threat and As Opportunity’ in N. BROCKMAN and N. PIEDISCALZI (eds),
Contemporary Religion and Social Responsibility, New York: Alba House, 1973, p. 103-
117.
- ‘The Holy Spirit and the Theology of Life’ in A. SHARMA (ed.), Religion in a Secular
City. Essays in Honor of Harvey Cox, Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001,
p. 116-120.
- ‘The Inviting Unity of the Triune God’ in Concilium 177, 1985, p. 50-58.
- ‘The Liberating Feast’ in Concilium 1, 1974, p. 74- 84.
- ‘The Liberation of Oppressors’ in Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 26, 1979, p.
24-38 (also in Christianity and Crisis 38, 1978, p. 310-317).
- ‘The Life Signs of the Spirit in the Fellowship Community of Christ’ in J. MOLTMANN,
M. D. MEEKS, R. J. HUNTER, J. W. FOWLER, N. L. ERSKINE, Hope for the Church:
Moltmann in dialogue with Practical Theology, Nashville: Abingdon, 1979, p. 37-56.
- ‘The Lordship of Christ and Human Society’ in J. MOLTMANN and J. WEISSBACH, Two
Studies in the Theology of Bonhoeffer, New York: Charles Scribner’s, 1967, p. 19-94.
- ‘The Motherly Father: Is Trinitarian Patripassianism Replacing Theological
Patriarchalism?’ in E. SCHILLEBEECKX and J. B. METZ (eds), God as Father?, Edinburgh:
T & T Clark, 1981, p. 51-56.
- ‘The Passion of Christ and the Suffering of God’ in Asbury Theological Journal 48,
1993, p. 19-28.
- ‘The Possible Nuclear Catastrophe and Where is God?’ in Scottish Journal of Religious
Studies 9, 1988, p. 71-83.
- ‘The Realism of Hope: The Feast of the Resurrection and the Transformation of the
Present Reality’ in Concordia Theological Monthly 40, 1969, p. 143-155.
- ‘The Revolution of Freedom: The Christian and Marxist Struggle’ in T. W. OGLETREE
(ed.), Openings for Marxist-Christian Dialogue, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1969, p. 48-
53.
- ‘The Right to Dissent’ in Concilium 158, 1982, I-VIII, 1-110.
- ‘The Scope of Renewal in the Spirit’ in Ecumenical Review 42, 1990, p. 98-106.
446
- ‘The Theology of our Liberation’ in Theology Digest 45, 1998, p. 3-5.

- ‘The Unity of the Triune God: Comprehensibility of the Trinity and its Foundation in
the History of Salvation’ in St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 28, 1984, p. 157-171.
- ‘The Wealth of Gifts of the Spirit and Their Christian Identity’ in Concilium, 1999/1, p.
45-73.
- ‘Theodicy’ in A. RICHARDSON and J. BOWDEN (eds), A New Dictionary of Christian
Theology, London: SCM Press, 1983, p. 564-566.
- ‘Theological basis of human rights and the liberation of man’ in Reformed World 31,
1972, P. 67-73.
- ‘Theologie des Kommunismus und Theologie der Hoffnung’ in Evangelische
Kommentare 3, 1970, p. 149-152.
- ‘Théologie et droits de l’homme’ in Revue des Sciences Religieuses 52, 1978, p. 299-
314.
- ‘Theologie im Projekt der Moderne’ in Evang. Theol. 55, 1995, p. 402-415.
- ‘Theologische Erklärung zu den Menschenrechte’ in Una Sancta 32, 1977, p. 178-186.
- ‘Theology as Eschatology’ in F. HERZOG (ed.), The Future of Hope: Theology as
Eschatology, New York: Herder & Herder, 1970, p. 154-164.
- ‘Theology of Mystical Experience’ in Scott. Journ. Theol. 32, 1979, p. 501-520.
- ‘Theology of the Cross’ in A. RICHARDSON and J. BOWDEN (eds), A New Dictionary of
Christian Theology, London: SCM Press, 1983, p. 135-137.
- ‘Towards the Next Step in the Dialogue’ in F. HERZOG (ed.), The Future of Hope:
Theology as Eschatology, New York: Herder & Herder, 1970, p. 1-50.
- ‘Vom Anfang der Zeiten in der Präsenz Gottes’ in T. R. PETERS, C. URBAN (eds), Ende
de Zeit? Die Provokation der Rede von Gott, Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald, 1999, p. 65-
65.
- ‘Warum Schwarze Theologie? Einführung’ in Evangelische Theologie 35, 1974, p. 1-3.
- ‘Was heißt heute “evangelisch? Von der Rechtfertigungslehre zur Reich-Gottes-
Theologie’ in Evang. Theol. 57, 1997, p. 36-41.
- ‘Welche Einheit? Der Dialog zwischen den Traditionen des Ostens und des Westens’ in
Ökum. Rundschau 26, 1977, p. 287-296.
- ‘What is a Theologian?’ in Ir. Theol. Quart. 64, 1999, p. 189-198.
447
- ‘Zum Gespräch mit Christian Link’ in Evangelische Theologie 47, 1987, p. 93-95.
- ‘Zwölf Bemerkung zur Symbolik des Bösen’ in Evang. Theol. 52, 1992, p. 1-6.
3. Works co-authored by Jürgen Moltmann

- KASPER, W., MOLTMANN, J., Jesus Ja - Kirche Nein, Köln: Benziger Verlag, 1973.
- LAPIDE, P., MOLTMANN, J., Jewish Monotheism and Christian Trinitarian Doctrine : A
Dialogue, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.
- METZ, J. B., MOLTMANN, J., Faith and the Future, New York: Orbis Books, 1995.
- METZ, J. B., MOLTMANN, J., Meditation on the Passion: Two Meditations on Mark 8:
31-38, New York: Paulist Press, 1979.
- METZ, J. B., MOLTMANN, J., OELMÜLLER, W., Una nuova teologia politica, Assisi:
Cittadella, 1971.
- MOLTMANN, J., COX, H., GILKEY, L., HARVEY, V. A., MACQUARRIE, J., The Future of
Hope. Theology as Eschatology, New York: Herder and Herder, 1970.
- MOLTMANN, J., GIESSER, E., ‘Menschenrechte, Rechte der Menschenheit und Rechte
der Natur’ in Evang. Theol. 50, 1990, p. 437-444.
- MOLTMANN, J., WENDEL, E., ‘Becoming Human in New Community’ in The
Ecumenical Review 33, 1981, p. 354-365.
- MOLTMANN, J., WENDEL, E., Destati. amica mia: Il ritorno dell’amicizia di Dio,
Brescia: Queriniana, 2001.
- MOLTMANN, J., WOLTERSTORFF, N., CHARRY, E. T. (VOLF, M., ed.) A Passion for
God’s Reign, Grand Rapids, USA /Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans, 1998.
- MOLTMANN ET AL., Communities of Faith and Radical Discipleship, Macon: Mercer
University Press, 1986.
- WENDEL, E., MOLTMANN, J., Die Weiblichkeit des Heiligen Geistes: Studien zur
Feministischen Theologie, Gütersloh: Kaiser-Güterloher Verlagshaus, 1995.
- WENDEL, E., MOLTMANN, J., God - His and Hers, London: SCM Press. 1991.
- WENDEL, E., MOLTMANN, J., Humanity in God, New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1983.
448
II- Church official documents and patristic sources
1. Patristic sources
All patristic texts cited in this thesis are from the American Edition of the Ante-
Nicene Fathers, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, published by Hendrickson Publishers
in 1994 in the United States of America, originally published in the United States by the
Christian Literature Publishing Company or Charles Scribner’s Sons between 1885 and
1900.
- AUGUSTIN, Anti-Pelagian Writings, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol.
5.
- AUGUSTIN, The Writing against the Manichaens and against the Donatist, in Post-
Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, p. 69-365, 411-651.
- CLEMENT OF ROME, I Corinthians, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 5-21.
- CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, The Strommata, book I, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, p.
299-346.
- CYPRIAN, The Epistles of Cyprian, LII, LXXI, LXXIV, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5,
p. 335-336, 378-379, 390-397.
- CYPRIAN, Treatise I, on the Unity of the Church, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, p. 421-
429.
- CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, Catechetical Lectures, XVII, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,
Second Series, vol. 7, p. 134-143.
- GREGORY NAZIANZEN, Oration 2, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series,
vol. 7, p. 204-227.
- HILARY OF POITIERS, On the Trinity, book 3, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,
Second Series, vol. 9, p. 62-70.
- IGNATIUS, Ephesians, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 49-58.
- IGNATIUS, Magnesians, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 59-65.
- IGNATIUS, Philadelphians, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 79-85.
- IGNATIUS, Smyrnaeans, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 86-92.
- IGNATIUS, Trallians, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 66-72.
- IRENAEUS, Against Heresies, book I, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p.315-358.
- IRENAEUS, Against Heresies, book III, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 414-461.
449
- JUSTIN, Dialogue with Tripho, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 194-271.

- TERTULLIAN, Against Marcion, book IV, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, p. 345-428.
1. Church official documents

- Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, Bishops’ Conference of Ireland,
and Bishops’ Conference of Scotland, One Bread, One Body: A Teaching Document on
the Eucharist in the Life of the Church, and the Establishment of General Norms on
Sacrament Sharing, London: Catholic Truth Society, 1998.
- CELAM (Conferencia General del Episcopado Latinoamericano), Medellin-
Conclusiones (1968), San Salvador: UCA/Editores (primera edición), 1977.
- CELAM, Santo Domingo Conclusiones (1992), San Salvador: Imprenta Criterio, 1993.
- CELAM, Puebla-La evangelización en el presente y en el futuro de América Latina,
Bogotá: Ed. de la Conferencia del Episcopado Mexicano, 1979.
- Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘Instruction on Certain Aspect of the
Theology of Liberation’ in Origins, vol. 14, n. 13, 1984, p.194-204.
- Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘Instruction on Certain Aspect of the
Theology of Liberation’ in Origins, vol. 15, n. 44, 1986, p. 714-726.
- Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific
Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, 2000.
- JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Letter “Tertio Millennio Adveniente”, 1994.
- JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical “Dominum et Vivificantem”, 1986.
- JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical “Reconciliatio et Paenitentia”, 1984.
- JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical “Sollicitudo Rei Socialis”, 1987.
- JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical “Ut Unum Sint”, 1995.
- JOHN PAUL II, Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, VI, 1, 1983 (Gennaio-Giugno),
Roma: Liberia Editrice Vaticana, 1983, p. 558-576.
- PIUS XI, Encyclical “Mit brennender Sorge”, 1937.
- PIUS XII, Encyclical “Mystici Corporis Christi”, 1943.
- VATICAN COUNCIL II, Decree on the Catholic Eastern Churches: Orientalium
Ecclesiarum, in FLANNERY, A. (ed.), Vatican Council II The Conciliar and Post
Conciliar Documents, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1975, p. 441-451.
450
- VATICAN COUNCIL II, Decree on the Church’s Missionary Activity: Ad gentes divinitus,
in A. FLANNERY, A. (ed.), Vatican Council II The Conciliar and Post Conciliar
Documents, p. 813-862.
- VATICAN COUNCIL II, Decree on the Ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegratio, in FLANNERY,
A. (ed.), Vatican Council II The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, p. 452-563.
- VATICAN COUNCIL II, Decree on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions:
Nostra Aetate, in FLANNERY, A. (ed.), Vatican Council II The Conciliar and Post
Conciliar Documents, p. 738-749.
- VATICAN COUNCIL II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church: Lumen Gentium, in
FLANNERY, A. (ed.), Vatican Council II The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, p.
350-440.
- VATICAN COUNCIL II, Patoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World:
Gaudium et Spes, in FLANNERY, A. (ed.), Vatican Council II The Conciliar and Post
Conciliar Documents, p. 903-1001.
- WCC (Faith and Order), Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, Geneva: WCC, 1982.
- WCC, Faith and Order Louvain (1971), Lausanne: Imprimerie La Concorde, 1971.
- WCC, Sharing in One Hope Bangalore (1978), Lausanne: Imprimerie La Concorde,
1978.
- WCC, The Third World Conference on Faith and Order, (TOMKINS, O., ed.), London:
SCM Press, 1953.
- WCC, Uniting in Hope-Commission of Faith and Order Accra (1974), Lausanne:
Imprimerie La Concorde, 1975.
- WCC, What Kind of Unity, Geneva: WCC, 1974.
III. Others
- ACWILLIAMS, W., ‘Divine Suffering in Contemporary Theology’ in Scot. Journ. of
Theol. 33, 1980, p. 33-53.
- AHN BYUNG-MU, “Jesus and the Minjung in the Gospel of Mark”, in R. S.
SUGIRTHARAJAH (ed.), Voices from the Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the Third
World, Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1991, p. 85-113.
- ALTHAUS, P., Die letzten Dinge, Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1957.
- ALTHAUS, P., The Theology of Martin Luther, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.
451
- ALVES, R. A., A Theology of Hope, New York: Corpus, 1969.

- ALVES, R. A., COX, H., JOSSUA, M., Christianisme, opium ou libération? Une théologie
de l’espoire humain, Paris : Cerf, 1972.
- AMALADOSS, M., Vivre en liberté: les theologies de la liberation en Asie, Bruxelles:
Lumen Vitae, 1998.
- ANDERSON, C. C., “Bonaventure and the Sin of the Church” in Theological Studies 63,
2002, p. 267-289.
- ANDERSON, R. S. (ed.), Theological Foundations for Ministry, Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1979.
- ARTS, H., Moltmann et Tillich: Les fondements de l’espérance chrétienne, Gembloux :
J. Duculot, 1973.
- ATTFIELD, D. G., ‘Can God be Crucified? A Discussion of J. Moltmann’, in Scottish
Journal of Theology 30, 1977, p. 47-57.
- BARTH, K., Church and State, Greenville, SC: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 1991.
- BARTH, K., Church Dogmatics, the Doctrine of Reconciliation, IV.3.2, Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1962 (trans. from the German Die Kirchliche Dogmatik IV: Die Lehre von der
Versöhnung 3, Zweite Hälfte, Zollikon-Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1959).
- BARTH, K., Community, State, and Church, Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1968.
- BARTH, K., ‘Der Christ in der Gesellschaft’ in J. MOLTMANN (ed.), Angfänge der
dialektischen Theologie, Teil 1, München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1966, p. 3-36.
- BARTH, K., Dogmatics in Outline, London: SCM Press, 1949 (trans. by G. T. Thomson
from the German Dogmatik im Grundriss, Chr. Kaiser Verlag and Evangelischer Verlag,
1947).
- BARTH, K., L’Êpitre aux Romains, Genève : Labor et Fides, 1972.
- BARTH, K., The German Church Conflict, London: Lutterworth, 1965.
- BARTH, K., The Teaching of the Church regarding Baptism, London: SCM Press, 1948.
- BARTH, K., The Theology of the reformed Confession, Louisville: Westminster John
Knox Press, 2002.
- BASSET, J. C., ‘Croix et dialogue des religions’ in Rev. d’hist. de philos. religieuses 56,
1976, p. 545-558.
452
- BAUCKHAM, R. J., ‘Bibliography: Jürgen Moltmann’ in Modern Churchman 28, 1986,

p. 55-60.
- BAUCKHAM, R. J., ‘Evolution and Creation: in Moltmann’s Doctrine of Creation’ in
Epworth Review 15, 1988, p. 74-81.
- BAUCKHAM, R. J., ‘Jürgen Moltmann’ in D. F. FORD (ed.), The Modern Theologians:
An Introduction to Christian Theology of the Twentieth Century, vol 1, Oxford:
Blackwell, 1989, p. 293-310.
- BAUCKHAM, R. J., ‘Jürgen Moltmann’ in P. TOON and J. D. SPICELAND (eds.) One God
in Trinity, London: Bagster, 1980, p. 111-132.
- BAUCKHAM, R. J., ‘Moltmann, Jürgen’ in A. E. MACGRATH (ed.), The Blackwell
Encyclopaedia of Modern Christian Thought, Oxford: Blackwell, 1993, p. 385-388.
- BAUCKHAM, R., Moltmann: Messianic Theology in the Making, London: Marshall
Pickering, 1987.
- BAUCKHAM, R. J., ‘Moltmann’s Eschatology of the Cross’ in Scottish Journal of
Theology 30, 1977, p. 301-311.
- BAUCKHAM, R. J., ‘Moltmann’s Messianic Christology’ in Scot. Journ. Theol. 44, 1991,
p. 519-531.
- BAUCKHAM, R. J., ‘Moltmann’s Theology of Hope Revisited’ in Scot. Journ. Theol. 42,
1989, p. 199-214.
- BAUCKHAM, R. J., ‘Theodicy from Ivan Karamavov to Moltmann’ in Modern Theology
4, 1987, p. 83-97.
- BAUCKHAM, R. J., The Theology of J. Moltmann, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995.
- BAUCKHAM, R., HART, T., Hope Against Hope: Christian Eschatology in Contemprary
Context, London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1999.
- BAUCKHAM, R. J. (ed.), God Will Be All in All: The Eschatology of J. Moltmann,
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999.
- BAUM, G., “Structure of Sins” in G. BAUM and R. ELLSBERG, The Logic of Solidarity:
Commentaries on Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical On Social Concern, New York: Orbis,
1989, p. 110-126.
- BERGIN, H. F., ‘The Death of Jesus and Its Impact on God - J. Moltmann and E.
Schillebeeckx’ in Ir. Theol. Quart. 52, 1986, p. 193-211.
453
- BEST, T. F. (ed.), Faith and Renewal. Commission on Faith and Order, Geneva: WCC,
1986.
- BLANCY, A., ‘Le Dieu crucifié’ de Jürgen Moltmann’ in Études Théologiques et
Religieuses 50, 1975, p. 321-333.
- BLANCY, A., ‘Lire Moltmann’ in Études théologiques et religieuses 46, 1971, p. 355-
383.
- BLANCY, A., ‘Théologie trinitaire et éthique sociale chez J. Moltmann’ in Études
Théologiques et Religieuses 2, 1982, p. 245-254.
- BLASER, K., ‘Les enjeux d’une doctrine trinitaire sociale: A Propos du dernier livre de J.
Moltmann’ in Revue de Théologie de Philosophie 113, 1981, p. 155-166.
- BLOCH, E., Naturrecht und menschliche Würde, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1961.
- BLOCH, E., The Principle of Hope, 3 vls, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press,
1996 (trans. by N. Plaice, S. Plaice and P. Knight from the German Das Prinzip
Hoffnung, 3 vls, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1959).
- BOBRINSKOY, B., ‘Catholic-Orthodox Relations: The Need for Love as Well as
Knowledge’ in Sobornost 15, 1993, n. 2, p. 28-38.
- BOBRINSKOY, B., ‘L’Uniatisme à la lumière des ecclésiologies qui s’affrontent’ in
Irénikon 65, 1992, p. 423-439.
- BOFF, L., Ecology and Liberation, Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1995.
- BOFF, L., La terre en devenir, Paris: Édition Albin Michel, 1994 (trans. from the
Portuguese Ecologia, Mundializaçao Espiritualidade A Emergência de um novo
Paradigma, 1993).
- BONINO, J. M., Reading J. Moltmann from Latin America, in The Asbury Theological
55, 2000, p. 105-114.
- BOUTENEFF, P., “La Koinonia et l’unité eucharistique : un point de vue orthodoxe” in
Irénikon 72, 1999, p. 614-630.
- BRAATEN, C. E., ‘A Trinitarian Theology of the Cross’ in Journal of Religion 56, 1976,
p. 113-121.
- BRINGLE, M., ‘Leaving the Cocoon: Moltmann’s Anthropology and Feminist Theology’
in Andover Newton Quarterly 20, 1980, p. 153-161.
454
- BRITO, E., ‘Jürgen Moltmann, L’Esprit qui donne la vie: Une pneumatologie intégrale’
in Revue Théologique de Louvain 31, 2001, p. 415-416.
- BRUNNER, E., The Eternal Hope, London: Lutterworth Press, 1954.
- BULTMANN, R., Glauben und Verstehen III, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1960.
- BULTMANN, R., Essays Philosophical and Theological, London: SCM and Macmillan,
1955.
- BULTMANN, R., Faith and Understanding, London: SCM Press, 1969.
- BULTMANN, R., Theology of the New Testament I, London: SCM Press, 1952.
- CAPPS, W. H., Hope against Hope: Moltmann to Merton in One Theological Decade,
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976.
- CAYRE, F., Manual of Patrology and History of Theology, vol. 1, Tournai: Desclée,
1935 (trans. from the French Précis de Patrologie et d’histoire de la Théologie, Paris:
Desclée, 1927).
- CHAPMAN, G. C., ‘Jürgen Moltmann and the Christian Dialogue with Marxism’ in
Journal of Ecumenical Studies 18, 1981, p. 435-450.
- CHAPMAN, G. C., ‘Moltmann’s Vision of Man’ in Anglican Theological Review 56,
1974, p. 310-330.
- CHAPMAN, G. C., ‘On Being Human: Moltmann’s Anthropology of Hope’, in The
Asbury Theological 55, 2000, p. 69-84.
- CHERIAMPANATT, J., ‘The Catholic Principles of Ecumenism: Towards a New Theology
of Koinonia in Plurality’, in Ephrem’s Theological Journal 3, 1999, p. 155-171.
- COBB, J. B. JR., For the Common Good: redirecting the economy toward community,
the environment, and a sustainable future, 2nd ed., Boston: Beacon, 1994.
- COBB, J. B. JR., ‘Jürgen Moltmann’s Ecological Theology in Process Perspective’, in
The Asbury Theological Journal 55, 2000, p. 115-128.
- COBB, J. B. JR., “Reply to Jürgen Moltmann’s ‘The Unity of the Triune God’” in St.
Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 28, 1984/3, p. 173-177.
- COBB, J. B. JR., Sustainability: economics, ecology and justice, Maryknoll: Orbis
Books, 1992.
- COBB, J. B., JR., “What Is the Future? A Process Perspective” in E. H. COUSINS (ed.),
Hope and the Future of Man, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972, p. 1-14.
455
- CONGAR, Y., Église et Papauté, Paris: Cerf, 1994.

- CONGAR, Y., L’Église une, sainte, catholique et apostolique (Mysterium Salutis 15),
Paris: Cerf, 1970.
- CONGAR, Y., Sainte Église, Paris: Cerf, 1963.
- CONGAR, Y., The word and Spirit, London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1986.
- CONGAR, Y., Vrai et fausse réforme dans l’Église (Unam Sanctam 20), Paris: Cerf,
1950.
- CONYERS, A.J., God, Hope, and History: J. Moltmann and the Christian Concept of
History, Macon, GA: Mercer, 1988.
- CORNELISON, R. T., ‘The Development and Influence of Moltmann’s Theology’ in The
Asbury Theological Journal 55, 2000, p. 15-28.
- CORNILLE, C. (ed.), Many Mansions? Multiple Religious Belonging and Christian
Identity, Maryknoll, New York: Orbis, 2002.
- CORNU, D., Karl Barth und die Politik, Wuppertal : Aussaat, 1969.
- COUSINS, E. H. (ed.), Hope and the Future of man, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972.
- CULLMANN, O., Jesus und die Revolutionären seiner Zeit, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul
Siebeck), 1970.
- DABNEY, D. L., ‘The Advent of the Spirit: The Turn to Pneumatology in the Theology
of J. Moltmann’ in Asbury Theological Journal 48, 1993, p. 81-108.
- DE LUBAC, H., La postérité spirituelle de Joachim de Flore, vol. 1, Paris : Lethielleux,
1979.
- DILLISTONE, F. W., ‘The Theology of J. Moltmann’, in The Modern Churchman 18-19,
1974-1976, p. 145-150.
- DOWNEY, M. (ed.), The New Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality, Collegeville,
Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1993.
- DUFFY, S. J., The Dynamics of Grace, Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press,
1993.
- DULLES, A., A Church To Believe In: Discipleship and the Dynamics of Freedom, New
York: Crossroad, 1982.
- DUNNE, V., Prophecy in the Church. The Vision of Yves Congar, Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang, 2000.
456
- DUPUIS, J., Vers une théologie chrétienne du pluralisme religieux (Cogitatio Dei),
Paris: Cerf, 1997.
- DUPUIS, J. (ed.), The Christian Faith, Bangalore, India: Theological Publications, 1996.
- DUPUY, B., ‘Trinité et Royaume de Dieu’ in Istina 30, 1985, p.81-89.
- ECKARDT, A. R., ‘J. Moltmann, the Jewish People and the Holocaust’ in Journal of the
American Academy of Religion 44, 1976, p. 675-691.
- FAMERÉE, J., ‘Communion ecclésiale et communicatio in sacris appliquées à
l’eucharistie’ in Irénikon 72, 1999, p. 586-613.
- FAMERÉE, J., ‘Ecclésiologie catholique Différences séparatrices et rapprochements avec
les autres Églises’ in Revue Théologique de Louvain 33, 2002, p. 28-60.
- FAMERÉE, J., ‘La communion dans le baptême. Point de vue catholique, questions
œcuméniques’ in Irénikon 71, 1998, p. 435-460.
- FAURE, B., Le Bouddhisme, France: Dominos, 1996.
- FEIL, E. and WETH, R.(eds), Diskussion zur ‘Theologie der Revolution’, Munich:
Kaiser, 1969.
- FESKE, M. C., ‘Christ and Suffering in Moltmann’s Thought’ in The Asbury Theological
55, 2000, p. 85-134.
- FIORENZA, F. P. ‘Dialectical Theology and Hope’ in Heythrop Journal 10, 1969, p. 26-
42.
- FLOROVSKY, P. G., ‘The Doctrine of the Church and the Ecumenical Problem’ in The
Ecumenical Review 2, 1950, p. 152-161.
- FLOROVSKY, P. G., ‘The Limits of the Church’ in Church Quarterly Review 117, 1933,
p. 117-131.
- GARCIA B. F., Cristo de Esperanza, La cristología escatológica de J. Moltmann,
Salamanca: Kadmos, 1987.
- GIBELLINI, R., Panorama de la théologie au XXe Siècle, Paris, Cerf, 1994.
- GILKEY, L. ‘The Universal and Immediate Presence of God’, in F. HERZOG (ed.), The
Future of Hope: Theology as Eschatology, New York: Herder & Herder, 1970, p. 81-109.
- GIRA, D. and SCHEUER, J., (eds.), Vivre de plusieurs Religions. Promesse ou Illusion?
Paris: Les Édition de l’Atelier/Les Éditions Ouvrières, 2000.
457
- GOERGEN, D. J., ‘Christ’ in M. DOWNEY, (ed.), The New Dictionary of Catholic

Spirituality, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1993, p. 152-163.
- GOFFINET, P., La Théologie de la Croix de Jürgen Moltmann, Rome : Pont. Univ.
Gregoriana, diss., 1980.
- GOLLWITZER, G., Die kapitalistische Revolution, Munich: Kaiser, 1974.
- GOLLWITZER, H., Du bist gefragt: Reflexionen zur Gotteslehre, München: Kaiser, 1988.
- GOLLWITZER, H., and KELLER, C., Umkehr und Revolution, München: Kaiser, 1988;
- GOUDINEAU, H., SOULETIE, J.-L., Jürgen Moltmann, Paris: Cerf, 2002.
- GRASSMANN, G., Documentary History of Faith and Order 1963-1993, Geneva: WCC
Publications, 1993.
- GREEN, F. W. (ed.), The Oecumenical Documents on the Faith (4th ed.), London:
Methuen, 1950.
- GRUNDMANN, H., Studien über Joachim von Floris, Leipzig: Teubner, 1927.
- GURIÉRREZ, G., A Theology of Liberation, Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1988, p.
XIV, a revised version of the original English-language translation, Maryknoll, New
York: Orbis Books, 1973, (trans. from the Spanish Teología de la liberación, Lima: CEP,
1971).
- HAFSTAD, K., ‘Gott in der Natur: Zu Schöpfungslehre Jürgen Moltmanns’ in Evang.
Theol. 47, 1987, p. 460-466.
- HARVEY, W. W., The History and Theology of the Three Creeds, vol. 1, Cambridge:
Deighton, 1854.
- HAYES, Z., Vision of a Future, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1990.
- HEBBLETHWAITE, B., The Christian Hope, Basingstoke: Marshall Morgan and Scott,
1984.
- HEFNER, P. The Future as Our Future: A Teilhardian Perspective in E. H. COUSINS
(ed.), Hope and the Future of man, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972, p. 15- 39.
- HELEN, F. B., ‘The Death of Jesus and its Impact on God - Jürgen Moltmann and
Edward Schillebeeckx’ in The Irish Theological Quarterly 52, 1986, p. 193-211.
- HELLWIG, M. K., ‘Hope’ in M. DOWNEY (ed.), The New Dictionary of Catholic
Spirituality, Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1993, p. 506-515.
458
- HERMANN, W. R., ‘Moltmann’s Christology’ in Studia Biblica Theologica 16-17, 1988-

1989, p. 331.
- HERRMANN, W., The Communion of the Christian with God (German 1886), London:
SCM 1972.
- HERZOG, F. (ed.), The Future of Hope: Theology as Eschatology, New York: Herder &
Herder, 1970.
- HICK, J., God has Many Names: Britain’s New Religious Pluralism, London:
Macmillam, 1980.
- HICK, J., ‘Rethinking Christian Doctrine in the Light of Religious Pluralism’, in P.
PHAN (ed.), Christianity and the Wider Ecumenism, New York: Paragon House, 1990, p.
89-102.
- HINZE, B. E., ‘Ecclesial repentance and the demands of dialogue’ in Theological studies
61, 2000, p. 207-238.
- HRYNIEWICZ, W., ‘Le Dieu souffrant?’ in Église et Théologie12, 1981, p. 333-356.
- IRISH, J. A., ‘Moltmann’s Theology of Contradiction’, in Theology Today 32, 1975-
1976, p. 21-31.
- ISASI-DIAZ, A. M., Mujerista Theology, New York: Orbis Book, 1996.
- JEHLE, F., Karl Barth: une Étique politique, Lausanne: Éditions d’En-Bas, 2002.
- JOACHIM DE FIORE, Concordia Novi ac Veteris Testamenti, Venice, 1519 (reprinted
Frankfurt: Minerva, 1964).
- JOACHIM DE FIORE, Expositio in Apocalypsim, Venice, 1527 (reprinted Krankfurt:
Minerva, 1964).
- JUNG YOUNG LEE, Minjung Theology: People as Subjects of History, Maryknoll: Orbis
Books, 1981.
- JUNG YOUNG LEE (ed.), An Emerging Theology in World Perspective: Commentary on
Korean Mingjung Theology, Mystic, Conn.: Twenty-Third, 1988.
- JÜNGEL, E., and RAHNER, K., Was ist ein Sacrament? Vorstöße zur Verständigung,
Freiburg : Herder, 1971.
- KANT, E., Pour la paix perpétuelle, Lyon: Universitaires de Lyon, 1985.
- KANT, E., Religion with the Limits of Reason Alone, reprinted, New York: Harper and
Row, 1960.
459
- KÄSEMANN, A., Der Ruf der Freiheit, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1972.
- KÄSEMANN, A., Kirchlich Konflikte, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1982.
- KÄSEMANN, K., ‘On the Subject of Primitive Christian Apocalyptic’ in New Testament
Questions of Today, London: SCM Press, 1969.
- KASPER, W., Faith and the Future, London: Burn & Oates, 1985.
- KASPER, W., Jesus the Christ, Kent, Great Britain/ New Jersey, USA: Burns
&Oates/Paulist Press, 1976 (trans by V. Green from the German Jesus der Christus,
Mainz: Matthias-Grunewald Verlag, 1974).
- KERSTIENS, F., ‘Hope’ in K. RAHNER (ed.), Encyclopedia of Theology, London: Burns
& Oates, 1975, p. 650-655.
- KERSTIENS, F., ‘The Theology of Hope in Germany Today’ in Concilium 9, 1970/6, p.
101-111.
- KÜNG, H., ‘Die Religionen als Frage an die Theologie des Kreuzes’ in Evangelische
Theologie 33, 1973, p. 401-423.
- KÜNG, H., The Church, New York: Sheed and Ward, 1967.
- LAPOORTA, J. J., ‘An African Response [to The Spirit of Life]’ in Journal of Pentecostal
Theology 4, 1994, p. 51-58.
- LARERE, P., The Lord’s Supper: Towards an Ecumenical Understanding of the
Eucharist, Collegeville: Liturgical, 1993.
- LENNEN, R., The Ecclesiology of Karl Rahner, Oxford: Clarenden Press, 1995.
- LEVINAS, E., Le temps et l=autre, Paris: Quadrige, 1996,
- LEVINAS, E., Totality and Infinity, USA: Marninus Nijhoff Publishers, 1979.
- LINK, C., ‘Visionen der vollendeten Welt: Zu Jürgrn Moltmanns “Christlischer
Eschatologie’ in Evangelische Theologie 57, 1997, p. 364-371.
- LOEWE, W. P., ‘Two Theologians of the Cross, K. Barth and J. Moltmann’ in The
Thomist 41, 1977, p. 510-539.
- LOHFINK, G., L’Église que voulait Jésus, Paris : Cerf, 1985.
- MACCHIA, F. D., ‘A North American Response [to The Spirit of Life]’ in Journal of
Pentecostal Theology 4, 1994, p. 25-33.
- MACNEIL, J. T., History and Character of Calvinism, New York: Oxford University
Press, 1954.
460
- MACQUARRIE, J., Christian Hope, London & Oxford: Mowbrays, 1978.

- MARITAIN, J., De l’Église du Christ, Bruges : Desclée De Brouwer, 1970.
- MARLÉ, R., ‘Jürgen Moltmann: théologien de l’espérance’ in Études 370, 1989, p. 507-
520.
- MARSCH, W. D. (ed.), Diskussion über die ‘Theologie der Hoffnung’ von Jürgen
Moltmann, Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1967.
- MARTIN, L., Commentary on Galatians, Grand Rapids: Fleming H. Revell, 1988.
- MARTIN, L., Commentary on Romans, Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1976.
- MARTIN, L., Faith Alone, Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Bible Publishers, 1998.
- MARTIN, L., Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1957.
- MARTIN, L., Righteous Faith, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2002.
- MARX, K., Sur la religion, Paris : Ed. sociales, 1972.
- MASSET, P., ‘Espérance marxiste, espérance chrétienne’ in Nouvelle Revue
Thélogogique 3, 1977, p. 321-339.
- MCWILLIAMS, W., ‘Divine Suffering in Contemporary Theology’ in Scottish Journal of
Theology 33, 1980, p. 35-53.
- MEEKS, M. D., ‘Trinitarian Theology’ in Theology Today 38, 1982, p. 473-477.
- MEEKS, M. D., Origins of the Theology of Hope, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974.
- MELANCHTHON, La Confession d’Augsburg, Paris: Le Centurion, 1979.
- MERTENS, H. E., ‘The Future of God Moltmann’s Adventurous Journey of Exploration’
in Louvain Studies 22, 1997, p. 85-90.
- METZ, J. B., A Passion for God, New York / Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1998.
- METZ, J. B., ‘Does Our Church Need a New Reformation? A Catholic Reply’ in
Concilium 4, 1970, p. 81-91.
- METZ, J. B., Faith in History and Society, New York: Seabury Press, 1980.
- METZ, J. B., ‘Teologia e Iglesia en Latinoamerica. Elementos profeticos en el
cristianismo actual’ in Carthaginensia 8, 1992, p. 481-487.
- METZ, J. B., The Church and the World, New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966.
- METZ, J. B., ‘The Controversy about the Future of Man, An Answer to Roger Garaudy’
in Journal of Ecumenical Studies 4, 1967, p. 223-234.
461
- METZ, J. B., Theology of the World, London: Burns & Oats Limited, 1969, (trans. from
the German Zur Theologie der Welt, Mainz: Mathias-Grünewalt-Verlag, Munich: Chr.
Kaiser Verlag, 1968).
- METZ, J. B. and SCHILLEBEECKX, E., The Teaching Authority of the Believers,
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1985.
- MEYENDORFF, J., ‘Reply to Jürgen Moltmann’s ‘The Unity of the Triune God’” in St.
Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 28, 1984/3, p. 183-188.
- MIGLIORE, D. L., ‘Biblical Eschatology and Political Hermeneutics’ in Theology Today,
26, 1969-1970, p. 116-132.
- MIGUEZ-BONINO, J., Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation, Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1974.
- MOLNAR, P. D., ‘Moltmann’s Post-modern Messianic Christology; A Review
Discussion’ in The Thomas 56, 1992, p. 669-693.
- MONDIN, B., ‘Theology of Hope and the Christian Message’ in Biblical Theology
Bulletin 2, 1972, p. 43-63.
- MOONEY, C. F., Response to J. Moltmann in COUSINS, E. H. (ed.), Hope and the Future
of man, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972, p. 105- 109.
- MORSE, C., The Logic of Promise in Moltmann’s Theology, Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1979.
- MOTTU, H., ‘L’espérance chrétienne dans la pensée de J. Moltmann’ in Revue de
théologie et de philosophie 17, 1967, p. 242-258.
- MOTTU, H., La manifestation de l’Esprit selon Joachim de Fiore, Paris: Delachaux et
Niestlé Neuchâtel, 1977.
- MULLER, R. A., ‘Christ in the Eschaton: Calvin and Moltmann on the Duration of the
Munus Regium’ in Harvard Theol.74, 1981/1, p. 31-59.
- NEUNER, J., DUPUIS, J., The Christian Faith, Bangalore, India: Theological Publication,
1996.
- NIETZSCHE, F. Ainsi parlait Zarathoustra, Paris: Gallimard, 1971.
- O’COLLINS, G., Christology, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
- O’COLLINS, G., ‘The Principle and Theology of Hope’ in Scottish Journal of Theology
21, 1968, p. 129-144.
462
- O’DONNELL, J. J., ‘The Trinity as Divine Community: A Critical Reflection upon

Recent Theological Developments’ in Gregorianum 69, 1988, p. 5-34.
- O’KEEFE, M., What Are They Saying About Social Sin?, New York: Paulist, 1990.
- OLSEN, R., ‘Trinity and Eschatology: The Historical Being of God in J. Moltmann and
W. Pannenberg’” in Scot. Journ. of Theol. 36, 1983, p. 213-227.
- OTTO, R.E., The God of Hope: The Trinitarian Vision of J. Moltmann, Diss.
Westminster Theological Seminary, 1990.
- OTTO, R. E., ‘The Eschatological Nature of Moltmann’s Theology’ in Westminster
Theological Journal 54, 1992, p. 115-133.
- OTTO, R. E., ‘The Resurrection in Jürgen Moltmann’ in Journal Evangelical
Theological Society 35, 1992/1, p. 81-90.
- PANIKKAR, R., Salvation in Christ : Concreteness and Universality. The Supername,
Santa Barbara : University of California, 1972.
- PANIKKAR, R., The Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man, New York : Orbis,
1973.
- PANNENBERG, W., ‘Future and Unity’ in COUSINS, E. H. (ed.), Hope and the Future of
Man, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972, p. 60-78.
- PANNENBERG, W., Systematic Theology, vol. 2-3, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998 (trans
by G. W. Bromiley from the German Systematisch Theologie, Band 3, Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993).
- PANNENBERG, W., The Apostles’ Creed, London: SCM Press, 1972.
- PANNENBERG, W., The Church, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1983.
- PANNENBERG, W., Theology and the Kingdom of God, Philadelphia: The Westminster
Press, 1968.
- PANNENBERG, W., Thesen zur Theologie der Kirche, München: Claudius, 1970.
- PEDEN, W. C., ‘Moltmann’s Theology of Hope. A Review Article’ in The Iliff Review
25, 1968, p. 41-46.
- PESCH, R., ‘Das Messiasbekenntnis des Petrus (Mk. 8: 27-30). Neuverhandlung einer
alten Frage’ in Biblische Zeitschrift 17, 1973, p. 178-195; 18 (1974), p. 20-31.
- PESCHKE, K. H., Christian Ethics, vol. I-II, Bangalore: Theological Publications in
India, 1987.
463
- PETERS, T., ‘Moltmann and the Way of the Trinity’ in Dialog 31, 1992, p. 272-279.
- PETERSON, E., Theologische Traktate, München: Kösel, 1951.
- PHAN, P. C., ‘Multiple Religious Belonging: Opportunities and Challenges for
Theology and Church’ in Theological Studies 64, 2003, p. 495-519.
- PILAR AQUINO, M., ‘The Women’s Movement’ in Concilium 5, 1999, p. 90-94.
- PIZZUTI, G. M., ‘Jügen Moltmann: Il Dio di Parmenide e Il Dio crocifisso’ in Asprenas
29, 1982, p. 331-362.
- QUASTEN, J., Patrology, vol. 1, Allen, Texas: Christian Classics, 1950.
- RAGAZ, R., Katholische Socialisten, Mannheim: Verlag der religiösen Socialisten, 1930.
- RAHNER, K., Karl Rahner in Dialogue: Conversations and Interviews, 1965-1981, New
York: Crossroad, 1986.
- RAHNER, K., ‘Justified and Sinner at the Same Time’ in Theological Investigations, vol.
6, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1974, p. 218-230.
- RAHNER, K., ‘Membership of the Church According to the Teaching of Pius XII’s
Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi’ in Theological Investigations, vol. 2, London:
Darton, Longman & Todd, 1974, p. 1-88.
- RAHNER, K., ‘Resurrection’ in K. RAHNER (ed.), Encyclopedia of Theology, 3rd ed.,
London: Burns & Oates, 1981, p. 1438-1442.
- RAHNER, K., ‘The Church and the Parousia of Christ’ in Theological Investigations, vol.
6, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1974, p. 295-312.
- RAHNER, K., ‘The Church of Sinners’ in Theological Investigations, vol. 6, London:
- RAHNER, K., ‘The Church of the Saints’ in Theological Investigations, vol. 3, London:
- RAHNER, K., ‘The Sinful Church in the Decrees of Vatican II’ in Theological
Investigations, vol. 6, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1974, p. 270-292.
- RAHNER, K., Theological Investigations, vol 10, Baltimore: Helicon Press / London:
Darton, Longman & Todd, 1966, p.19-20.
- RAHNER, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Theology, London: Burns & Oates, 1975.
- RATZINGER, J., Call to Communion, San Francisco: Ignatius, 1991.
- RATZINGER, J., Church, Ecumenism and Politics, New York: Crossroad, 1989.
464
- RATZINGER, J., Einführung in das Christentum, Munich: Kösel, 1968.

- RATZINGER, J., ‘Eucharist and Mission’ in Irish Theological Quarterly 65, 2000, p. 245-
264.
- RATZINGER, J., ‘The Local Church and the Universal Church: A Response to Walter
Kasper’ in America 185, 2001, p. 7-11.
- RATZINGER, J., ‘Theologie und Kirche’ in Communio 15, 1986, p. 515-533.
- RENDTORFF, T. and TÖDT, H. E., Theologie der Revolution, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1968.
- RHODES, J. S., ‘The Church as the Community of Open Friendship’ in The Asbury
Theological Journal 55, 2000, p. 41-50.
- RICOEUR, P., Le conflit des interprétations, Paris : Seuil, 1969, p. 393-415.
- ROUSSEAU, J. J., Du contrat social, book 4, Paris: Union générale d’édition, 1973.
- RYAN, T. J., ‘Son of Man’ in P. K. MESGHER, T. C. O’BRIEN, C. M. AHERNE (eds),
Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion, vol. O-Z, Washington, D.C.: Corpus Publications,
1979, p. 3346-3348.
- SCHILLEBEECKX, E., Christ, the Experience of Jesus as Lord, New York: Crossroad,
1980.
- SCHILEBEECKX, E., Die eucharistisch Gegenwart, Sheed Andrews & McMeel, 1968.
- SCHILLEBEECKX, E., The Mission of the Church, New York: The Seabury Press, 1973.
- SCHLEIERMACHER, F., Der Christliche Glauben ((2 Auflage 1830-1831), reprinted,
Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002.
- SCHLIER, H., Die Zeit der Kirche, Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 1958.
- SCHMAUS, M., Dogma 4, The Church, its Origin and Structure, London: Sheed & Ward
Inc., 1971.
- SCHMID, J., ‘Resurrection’ in K. RAHNER (ed.), Encyclopedia of Theology, London:
Burns & Oates, 1975, p. 1442-1450.
- SCHMITT, K., Politische Theologie. Vier Kapitel zur Lehre von der Souveränität,
Munich & Berlin: Duncker, 1922.
- SCHÜRMAN, D. J., ‘Creation, Eschaton, and Ethics: an Analysis of Theology and Ethics
in Jürgen Moltmann’ in Calvin Theological Journal 22, 1987, p. 42- 67.
- SCHWAIGER, G., ‘Pope’ in K. RAHNER, (ed.) Encyclopedia of Theology, London: Burns
& Oates, 1975, p.1243-1255.
465
- SCHWEITZER, A., Kulture und Ethik, München: Beck Verlag, 1960, (trans. from the
German Reich Gottes und Christentum, Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1967).
- SCHWEITZER, A., Reverence for Life, London: S.P.C.K., 1970 (trans. by D. E. Trueblood
from the German Strassburger Predigten, München: Beck Verlag, 1966).
- SCHWEITZER, D., ‘Jürgen Moltmann’s Theology as a Theology of the Cross’ in Studies
in Religion / Sciences Religieuses 24/1, 1995, p. 93-107.
- SCHWEITZER, D., ‘The Consistency of Jürgen Moltmann’s Theology’ in Studies in
Religion / Sciences Religieuses 22, 1993, p. 197-208.
- SENN, F. C. ‘A Lutheran Reaction to the Papal Encyclical [Ut Unum Sint]’ in
Ecumenical Trends 25, 1996, p. 14-16.
- SEPÚLVERA, J., ‘The Perspective of Chilean Pentecostalism [on The Spirit of Life]’ in
Journal of Pentecostal Theology 4, 1994, p. 41-49.
- SIEVERNICH, M.,’Social Sin and Its Acknowledgemen’” in M. COLLINS and D. POWER
(eds), The Fate of Confession, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1978, p. 52-63.
- SKVORCEVIC, A., Ecclesiologia eschatologico-messianica di J. Motlmann, Excerpta ex
dissertatione, Roma: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1982.
- SOULETIE, J. L., La croix de Dieu. Eschatologie et histoire dans la perspective
christologique de Jürgen Moltmann, Paris: Cerf, 1997.
- SPURR, J., English Puritanism 1603-1689, Basingstoke: MacMillan, 1998.
- STEEN, M., ‘Jürgen Moltmann’ Critical Reception of K. Barth’s Theopaschitism’ in
Ephemerides Theologiae Lovanienses 67, 1991, p. 276-311.
- STIBBE, M. G., ‘A British Appraisal [of The Spirit of Life]’ in Journal of Pentecostal
Theology 41, 1981, p. 89-94.
- STRUNK, R., ‘Diskussion über Der gekreuzigte Gott’ in Evangelische Theologie 41,
1981, p. 89-94.
- SUGIRTHARAJAH, R. S. (ed.), Voices from the Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the
Third World, Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1991.
- SUNG PARK, A. The Wounded Heart of God: The Asian Concept of Han and the
Christian Doctrine of Sin, Nashville: Abingdon, 1993.
- SUTH KWANG-SUN, D. The Korean Minjung in Christ, Hong Kong: Christian
Conference of Asia, 1991.
466
- SWETE, H. B., The Holy Catholic Church: The Communion of Saints - A Study in the
Apostles’ Creed, London: MacMillan, 1915.
- TANG, S. K., God’s History in the Theology of Jürgen Moltmann, Ph. D. thesis,
Unversity of St. Andrews, 1994.
- TATUM, W.C., Moltmann’s Eschatological Perspective in Relationship to Selected
Doctrines, Diss. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1989.
- TEILHARD DE CHARDIN, P., L’avenir de l’homme, Paris : Seuil, 1970.
- TEILHARD DE CHARDIN, P., Le milieu divin, Paris: Seuil, 1958.
- TEIXEIRA, F., ‘A Catholic Response - Base Church Communities in Brazil’ in
Concilium, 1996/1, p.22-36.
- THÉVENAZ, J.-P., ‘Le Dieu crucifié n’a-t-il plus d’histoire?’ in Revue de Théologie et de
Philosophie 115, 1983, p. 199-208.
- THÉVENAZ, J.-P., ‘Passion de Dieu, passions humaines et sympathie des choses. Éthique
et messianisme chez J. Moltmann’ in Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie 119, 1987, p.
303-321.
- THÉVENAZ, J.-P., ‘Vérité d’espérance ou vérité de connaissance? Les enjeux
théologiques et politiques de la théologie de Jürgen Moltmann’ in Études théologiques et
religieuses 49, 1974, p. 225-247.
- THILS, G., ‘Soyez riches d’espérance par la vertu du Saint Esprit (Rm. 15 :13) : La
théologie d’espérance de J. Moltmann’ in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 47,
1971, p. 495-503.
- THISTLETHWAITE, S. B., ‘Comments on Jürgen Moltmann’s ‘The Unity of the Triune
God’” in St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 28, 1984, p. 179-182; 340-370.
- THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 17-20 in Summa Theologica of St.
Thomas, vol. III, Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classics, 1981, p. 1236-1260 ((trans.
by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, originally published in 1911).
- THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologicae, III, q. 8, 3. 2, in Summa Theologica of St.
Thomas, vol. IV, Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classics, 1981, p. 2071.
- THURIAN, M. (ed.), Churches respond to BEM, vol. VI, Geneva: WCC, 1988.
- TILLICH, P., Systematic Theology, vol. I, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
1951.
467
- TOMKINS, O. S. (ed.), The Third World Conference on Faith and Order Held at Lund
August 15th to 28th, 1952, London: SCM Press, 1953.
- TORRANCE, A. J., ‘Response to J. Moltmann’ in H. D. REGAN and A. J. TORRANCE
(eds), Christ and Context: The Confrontation between Gospel and Culture, Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1993, p. 192-200.
- TORRANCE, T. F., ‘Foundation of the Church’ in R. S. ANDERSON (ed.), Theological
Foundations for Ministry, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979. .
- TRIPOLE, M. R., ‘A Church for the Poor and the World: at Issue with Moltmann’s
Ecclesiology’ in Theological Studies 42, 1981, p. 645-658.
- TRIPOLE, M. R., ‘Ecclesiological developments in Moltmann’s Theology of Hope’ in
Theological Studies 34, 1973, p. 19-35.
- VANDERWILT, J., ‘Eucharist sharing: revising the question’ in Theological Studies 63,
2002, p. 826-839.
- VON BALTHASAR, H. U., ‘Eschatology’ in J. FEINER ET AL (ed.), Theology Today I,
Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co., p. 222-244.
- VON BALTHASAR, H. U., Qui est l’Église?, Saint-Maur: Éditions Parole et Silence,
2000,
- VON BALTHASAR, H. U., ‘Zu einer christichen Theologie der Hoffnung’ in Münchener
Theologische Zeitschrift 30, 1981, p. 81-102.
- WALSH, B. J., ‘Theology of Hope and the Doctrine of Creation: An Appraisal of J.
Moltmann’ in Evangelical Quarterly 59, 1987, p. 53-76.
- WEBSTER, J. B., ‘Jürgen Moltmann: Trinity and Suffering’ in Evangel 3/2, 1985, p. 4-6.
- WELLS, P. ‘Dieu et le changement. J. Moltmann à la lumière du théisme réformé’ in
Hokhma 43, 1990, p. 49-66.
- WENDEL, E., Menschenrechte für die Frau, Munich : Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1974.
- WIDMER, G. P., ‘Le nouveau et le possible: Notes sur les théologies de l’espérance’ in
Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 56, 1976, p. 495-508.
- WIEBE, B., ‘Interpretation and Historical Criticism: Jürgen Moltmann’ in Restoration
Quarterly 24, 1981, p. 155-166.
- WIEBE, B., ‘Revolution as an Issue in Theology: J. Moltmann’ in Restoration Quarterly
26, 1983, p. 105-120.
468
- WILBURN, B., ‘Some Questions on Moltmann’s Theology of Hope’ in Religion in Life

38, 1969, p. 578-595.
- WILLIAMS, D., Sisters in the Wilderness. The Challenge of Womanist God-Talk, New
York: Orbis Book, 1994.
- WILLIAMS, S. N., Jürgen Moltmann: A Critical Introduction, Leicester: Theological
Students Fellowship, 1987.
- WILLIAMS, S. N., ‘Reformed Perspective on Mission and Hope’ in Reformed World 39,
1986, p. 625-631.
- WINLING, R., ‘Future et Avenir: à Propos d’une mise au point de J. Moltmann’ in
Recherches de Science Religieuse 53, 1979, p.180-184.
- WOOD, L. W., ‘From Barth’s Trinitarian Christology to Moltmann’s Trinitarian
Pneumatology’ in The Asbury Theological 55, 2000, p. 51-68.
- YET, P., ‘La réévaluation de l’espérance selon J. Moltmann’ in Bulletin de Littérature
ecclesiastique 72, 1971, p. 161-186.
- ZIMANY, R. D., ‘Moltmann’s Crucified God’ in Dialog 16, 1997, p. 49-56.
469
INDEX OF AUTHORS
AHERNE, C. M., 28, 464 CORNU, D., 340, 455
ALTHAUS, P., 166, 169, 172, 200, 201, COUSINS, E.H., 9, 156, 259, 441, 454,
404, 450 455, 457, 461, 462
ALVES, R.A., 130, 451 COX, H., 130, 442, 445, 447, 451
AMALADOSS, M., 221, 348, 451 CULLMANN, O., 34, 404, 455
ANDERSON, C. C., 56, 99, 451, 467 CYPRIAN, 72, 116, 122, 124, 213, 448
AUGUSTIN, 50, 98, 448 CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, 109, 448
BACON, F., 257 DESCARTES, R., 257
VON BALTHASAR, H., U., 98, 467 DOWNEY, M., 21, 25, 133, 145, 152,
BARTH, K., 9, 17, 93, 118, 126, 134, 455, 457
135, 140, 147, 148, 149, 152, 153, DUFFY, S. J., 165, 455
155, 214, 236, 306, 316, 332, 334, DUNNE, V., 54, 55, 455
340, 404, 411, 428, 451, 455, 458, DUPUIS, J., 40, 213, 214, 221, 241, 427,
459, 465, 468 456, 461
BAUCKHAM, R., 13, 16, 90, 130, 132, ECKARDT, A. R., 204, 456
133, 138, 139, 236, 237, 242, 243, ELLSBERG, R., 99, 452
393, 406, 417, 418, 428, 452 FAMERÉE, J., 83, 91, 99, 456
BAUM, G., 99, 452 FAURE, B., 224, 456
BEST, T. F., 230, 453 FEIL, E., 353, 456
BLOCH, E., 9, 10, 129, 130, 131, 132, FEUERBACH, L., 142
136, 138, 142, 143, 158, 229, 412, FLOROVSKY, P. G., 79, 456
418, 437, 441, 453 FREUD, S., 142
BOBRINSKOY, B., 79, 453 GIBELLINI, R., 158, 212, 336, 456
BOFF, L., 343, 348, 356, 453 GIESSER, E., 256, 447
BONHOEFFER, B., 236, 445 GILKEY, L., 410, 447, 456
BOUTENEFF, P., 79, 453 GIRA, D., 221, 456
BRAATEN, C. E., 130, 453 GOERGEN, 21, 25, 457
BRUNNER, E., 214, 454 GOGARTEN, D. J., 214
BULTMANN, R., 17, 21, 134, 147, 148, GOLLWITZER, H., 334, 353, 457
149, 174, 201, 214, 307, 332, 334, GOUDINEAU, H., 11, 131, 457
404, 409, 454 GRASSMANN, G., 204, 208, 210, 457
BYUNG-MU, A., 378, 379, 382, 450 GREEN, F. W., 55, 109, 457, 459
CAYRE, F., 69, 454 GREGORY NAZIANZEN, 72, 448
CHARRY, E., T., 113, 127, 245, 332, 433, GRUNDMANN, H., 393, 457
447 GUTIÉRREZ, G., 17, 331, 346, 350
CHERIAMPANATT, J., 91, 92, 105, 124, HARVEY, W. W., 81, 445, 447, 457
454 Hayes, Z., 355, 409, 410, 457
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, 109, 236, HELLWIG, M. K., 133, 145, 152, 154,
242, 448 393, 457
CLEMENT OF ROME, 116, 144, 169, 448 HERRMANN, W., 147, 458
COBB, J. B., 74, 156, 348, 454 HILARY, 72, 448
CONGAR, Y., 17, 54, 55, 58, 69, 72, 85, HINZE, B., E., 99, 458
86, 100, 101, 109, 455 IGNATIUS, 84, 85, 94, 105, 107, 109,
CORNELISON, R. T., 9, 10, 455 144, 282, 298, 448, 463
CORNILLE, C., 221, 455 IRENAEUS, 84, 116, 117, 118, 238, 448
470
ISASI-DIAZ, A. M., 367, 458 PANNENBERG, W., 16, 69, 74, 81, 85, 92,
JEHLE, F., 340, 458 105, 113, 117, 126, 130, 133, 151,
JOACHIM DE FIORE, 393, 458, 461 156, 236, 241, 254, 257, 261, 269,
JUNG YOUNG LEE, 378, 381, 458 321, 399, 409, 410, 429, 462
JÜNGEL, E., 236, 306, 428, 458 JOHN PAUL II, 65, 79, 83, 90, 99, 113,
JUSTIN, 108, 449 117, 125, 274, 356, 449, 452
KANT, E., 20, 336, 337, 458 PESCH, R., 28, 462
KÄSEMANN, A., 307, 334, 459 PESCHKE, R. H., 128, 143, 462
KASPER, W., 28, 55, 175, 192, 263, 268, PETERSON, E., 202, 463
447, 459, 464 PHAN, P. C., 131, 221, 381, 458, 463
KELLER, C., 334, 457 PIUS XI, 101, 449
KERSTIENS, F., 151, 159, 459 PIUS XII, 387, 449, 463
KÜNG, H., 17, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 69, QUASTEN, J., 144, 463
92, 113, 208, 441, 443, 459 RAGAZ, R., 334, 463
KWANG-SUN SUTH, 378 RAHNER, K., 17, 42, 86, 87, 99, 130,
LENNEN, R., 87, 459 133, 151, 161, 192, 212, 226, 306,
LEVINAS, E., 245, 459 336, 428, 458, 459, 463, 464
LOHFINK, G., 56, 57, 58, 459 RATZINGER, J., 82, 297, 356, 410, 463,
LUTHER, M., 17, 145, 149, 165, 166, 464
168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 176, 178, RENDTORFF, T., 353, 464
317, 340, 406, 443, 444, 450, 460 RHODES, J. S., 78, 464
MACNEIL, J. T., 459 RICOEUR, P., 407, 464
MACQUARRIE, J., 157, 447, 460 ROUSSEAU, J. J., 332, 464
MARITAIN, J., 54, 55, 58, 460 RUFINUS, 69
MARSCH, 151, 439, 460 RYAN, T. J., 28, 464
MARX, K., 129, 142, 397, 460 SCHEUER, J., 221, 456
MELANCHTHON, P., 172, 460 SCHILLEBEECKX, E., 99, 113, 130, 198,
MERTENS, H. E., 404, 460 200, 258, 445, 452, 457, 461, 464
MESGHER, P. K., 28, 464 SCHLEIERMACHER, F., 20, 297, 464
METZ, J. B., 17, 39, 72, 130, 133, 134, SCHLIER, H., 316, 464
135, 148, 204, 235, 236, 241, 332, SCHMAUS, M., 82, 464
333, 334, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, SCHMID, J., 42, 464
351, 427, 428, 444, 445, 447, 460, 461 SCHMITT, C., 334, 336, 464
MEYENDORFF, J., 75, 428, 461 SCHWAIGER, G., 87, 464
MIGUEZ-BONINO, J., 353, 461 SCHWEITZER, A., 261, 404, 465
MIRCEA ELIADE, 143 SENN, F. C., 123, 124, 465
MONDIN, B., 129, 130, 135, 150, 151, SIEVERNICH, M., 99, 465
159, 161, 461 SKVORCEVIC, A., 84, 92, 93, 465
MOTTU, H., 147, 148, 393, 461 SOULETIE, 11, 22, 23, 131, 457, 465
NEUNER, J., 213, 461 SPINOZA, B., 143
NIETZSCHE, F. W., 397, 461 SPURR, J., 326, 465
O’BRIEN, T. C., 28, 464 SUGIRTHARAJAH, R. S., 378, 450, 465
O’COLLINS, J., 175, 461 SUNG PARK, A., 378, 465
O’KEEFE, M., 99, 462 SWETE, T. F., 109, 116, 118, 466
OLSEN, R., 74, 462 TEILHARD DE CHARDIN, P.,133, 397, 466
PANIKKAR, R., 221, 462 TERTULLIAN, 94, 109, 116, 118, 449
471
THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA, 236 WESLEY, J., 168, 173

THISTLETHWAITE, S. B., 74, 466 WETH, R., 353, 440, 456
THOMAS AQUINAS, 96, 145, 154, 466 WILBURN, B., 135, 140, 148, 468
THURIAN, M., 80, 466 WILLIAMS, D., 367, 468
TILLICH, P., 241, 451, 466 WOLTERSTORFF, N., 113, 127, 332, 447
TÖDT, H. E., 353, 464 ZINZENDORF, C., 172, 173
TORRANCE, A. J., 56, 58, 72, 439, 467 ZWINGLI, H., 321.
TRIPOLE, M. R., 420, 421, 424, 425, 467
WENDEL, E., 9, 367, 368, 372, 373, 374,
375, 377, 433, 447, 467

A Church of Hope in The Light of The Eschatological Ecclesiology of Jürgen Moltmann

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A Church of Hope in The Light of The Eschatological Ecclesiology of Jürgen Moltmann

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

"A church of hope in the light of the

eschatological ecclesiology of Jürgen Moltmann"

Kim, Nam Van

CITE THIS VERSION

Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/5397 [Downloaded 2021/10/08 at 10:04:59 ]

PART I. THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH ........................................................ 18

PART II. THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST ............................................................... 68

1. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH......................................................................... 70

1.3. Sins against hope.......................................................................................... 152

3.2.2.2. Conditions for inter-religious dialogue.......................................... 219

PART III. THE CHURCH IN THE POWER OF THE SPIRIT..................................... 270

1.3.4. Charismatic gifts and Christian daily life ............................................. 288

1.3.2. Theology of liberation and redemption................................................. 350

PART IV. AN ASSESSMENT OF MOLTMANN’S ECCLESIOLOGY ..................... 408

2.1. Points requiring clarification or further development...................................... 420

GENERAL CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 433

INDEX OF AUTHORS .................................................................................................. 469

Church.”1 It is rooted in eschatological Christology, i.e., it points to “the universal future

PART I. THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH

CHAPTER I. JESUS IS WHO ISRAEL EXPECTED

1.1. Who is Jesus?

1.1.1. Speculative Christology

1.1.2. The historical Jesus and christian kerugma

resurrected Christ. Consequently, there are correspondences between the preaching of

1.1.3. God becomes man

1.2. Jesus Christ is the Messiah

1.3. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God

1.3.1. Jesus’ self-revelation

1.3.2. Christian affirmation

2. THE SUFFERING MESSIAH

2.1. Jesus above the law: the blasphemer

2.2. Jesus rebels against authority

2.3. Jesus is forsaken by God

3. THE ESCHATOLOGICAL JESUS

3.1. Jesus rises from the dead

3.1.1. God’s promise of resurrection

3.1.2. Jesus’ resurrection as a novum ultimum

3.1.3. The recognition of the Lord resurrected

3.1.4. Continuity in Jesus Christ’s history

3.2. The exalted Jesus Christ and his coming

3.2.1. The future of Jesus

since he is now exalted, is an eschatological person who is the representative of the

permeated by the life-giving divine Spirit, and it is in this transfiguration that he

CHAPTER II. THE ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

1. THE MESSIAH AND THE BEGINNING OF THE CHURCH

1.1. Jesus Christ, the foundation of the Church

1.2. Jesus Christ, the founder of the Church

1.3. Jesus Christ, the author of faith

2. THE CROSS OF CHRIST IS THE SOURCE OF THE CHURCH

3. THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE FORMATION OF THE CHURCH

CONCLUDING REMARKS OF PART I

PART II. THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST

CHAPTER I. THE MARKS OF THE CHURCH

1. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH

1.2. Christological unity

1.3.1 The Eucharist

1.3.1.1. Baptism as condition for inter-communion

1.3.1.2. Church unity as a condition for inter-communion

considers it as one of many elements concerning the possibility of inter-communion:

1.3.1.3. Inter-communion as a means to church unity

1.3.1.4. Inter-communion as a sign to the world of the Church’s unity

1.3.2.The hierarchical structure

1.4. The ecumenical Church