Bringing Hope to the Hopeless | Book Review

On March 18, 1967, the New York Times declared, “God is Dead Doctrine Losing Ground to ‘Theology of Hope’.”¹ This is a simultaneous reference to Friedrich Nietzsche’s famous declaration, “God is dead,”² and Jürgen Moltmann’s (at the time) brand new book: Theology of Hope.

When I was in high school, I was not the best student, but if I remember anything from those four years at a Christian school, I remember learning that postmodernism³ was dangerous. I also remember being taught that it arose as a result of Nietzsche’s declaration, “God is dead.”⁴ So the battle lines had been drawn between defensive Christianity on one side, and aggressive, atheistic postmodernism on the other side.

This mentality is sad, because 1) it paints Christians like helpless, oppressed victims, and 2) it gets us up in arms to destroy a so-called enemy that God actually wants to save.⁵ Why did my teachers fail to mention that 42 years prior Nietzsche’s philosophy was already falling to the gospel of hope?

Is this not what we need in a world with rising suicide rates at all stages of life?⁶ Is this not what Christianity—especially Protestant, sola fide believing Christianity—is all about? Does Hebrews 11:1 not say that faith is the reality of what is hoped for? Why do we act so hopeless all the time?⁷

This is why Moltmann wrote Theology of Hope. It sets out to prove that hope is the special theme of Christian theology.⁸ His introduction makes the further argument that both presumption and despair are sins against hope.⁹ In chapter 1, he makes the argument that our fascination with eschatology¹⁰ as a doctrine has sidestepped the Christian understanding of hope by trying to create certainty (dogma) where nothing is certain. In chapter 2, he balances this discussion by highlighting that we can be certain of God’s promises, because we can be certain that God’s Word will come to pass.

If the word is a word of promise, then that means that this word has not yet found a reality congruous with it, but that on the contrary it stands in contradiction to the reality open to experience now and heretofore. It is only for that reason that the word of promise can give rise to the doubt that measures the word by the standard of given reality. And it is only for that reason that this word can give rise to the faith that measures present reality by the standard of the word.¹¹

In chapter 3—the longest in the book—he emphasizes that the resurrection of Christ is where hope and promise meet—the actual downpayment of our future hope: “The hope that is born of the cross and the resurrection transforms the negative, contradictory and torturing aspects of the world into terms of ‘not yet’, and does not suffer them to end in ‘nothing’.”¹² In chapter 4, he looks at the topic of history and describes the reality that history repeatedly points us to the need for eschatological hope.

This tradition of promise turns our eyes not towards some primaeval, original event, but towards the future and finally towards an eschaton of fulfilment. We do not drift through history with our backs to the future and our gaze returning ever and again to the origin, but we stride confidently towards the promised future. It is not the primaeval ancients who are near the truth and dwell nearer to the gods, but it is to future generations that the promises are given, in order that they may see the fulfilment.¹³

In chapter 5, he concludes by painting a picture of the Church as a hope-creating force in this world.

There is much to commend about this book. It is rigorous in its research, careful in its chronicling of history and exegesis, and thorough in its theology. But the aspect I want to emphasize is its persistent practicality. While it can be tedious to read due to its reliance on the German theological tradition (e.g., Barth, Bultmann, Pannenberg, von Rad, etc.),¹⁴ it is thoroughly practical. The Church needs to offer hope to the world.

This is the message of the gospel, and if we want to call ourselves God’s people, we should promote the things God promotes. God came to earth as Christ to offer the hope of salvation to the world. Moltmann concludes his book:

The hope of resurrection must bring about a new understanding of the world. This world is not the heaven of self-realization, as it was said to be in Idealism. This world is not the hell of self-estrangement, as it is said to be in romanticist and existentialist writing. The world is not yet finished, but is understood as engaged in a history. It is therefore the world of possibilities, the world in which we can serve the future, promised truth and righteousness and peace. This is an age of diaspora, of sowing in hope, of self-surrender and sacrifice, for it is an age which stands within the horizon of a new future. Thus self-expenditure in this world, day-to-day love in hope, becomes possible and becomes human within that horizon of expectation which transcends this world. The glory of self-realization and the misery of self-estrangement alike arise from hopelessness in a world of lost horizons. To disclose to it the horizon of the future of the crucified Christ is the task of the Christian Church.¹⁵

While Moltmann’s doctrine of God (Trinitarianism) might be less than classical theism, and while he may have some universalist proclivities,¹⁶ his book should not be viewed with suspicion.¹⁷ His thought is “an invitation to think and to rethink,”¹⁸ and we do the Christian Church a disservice if we fail to carefully consider him.

It would be picking hairs to argue that because his theology of hope grows out of his doctrine of God that his theology of hope is unfounded. There are three places where Moltmann identifies “future as [God’s] essential nature”: In the first place, he attributes this phrase to Bloch and highlights “God of hope” in Romans 15:13;¹⁹ in the second place, he identifies Yhwh as this wayfaring God;²⁰ in the third place, he says that this is the God who “reveals himself in Jesus,” and he specifies that this is opposed to Aristotle’s view of God as Unmoved Mover.²¹ As a result, one must question whether Platonism and Aristotelianism are truly faithful understandings of God. But even if one decides that they are the proper way to conceive of God (as the Church has declared for close to 2,000 years), the Bible makes it clear that Christianity is a religion of hope (cf. Hebrews 11:1; 1 Peter 3:15; 1 Corinthians 13:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:3). Thus, Moltmann’s message in Theology of Hope must be heeded.

For Moltmann, Christian hope is not for Christians only, and it is not merely spiritual. This is a reality that needs to be front and center in Christian teaching again. It is not us vs. them. It is us for them. They do not know hope. We know the very fountain of hope. We owe the world access to this same source of hope. In the words of some old Christian from ages past, we are merely beggars, showing other beggars where to find bread. And in a hopeless period of world history, there is nothing needed more than hope, including practical, physical expressions of hope. Moltmann (who passed away June 3, 2024) is now face-to-face with the source of hope. We owe it to each other to foster Christian hope in this world.

In this with you.

Thanks for reading.

---

Notes and References

1. Quoted in the “Preface to the New Paperback Edition” of Jürgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian Eschatology, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993), 10. ↩︎
2. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, trans. W. Kaufman (New York: Vintage, 1974), 125. ↩︎
3. Dictionary.com defines postmodernism as: “Any of a number of trends or movements in the arts or literature…in reaction to or rejection of the dogma, principles, or practices of established modernism.” This definition practically demands a definition of modernism: “A deliberate philosophical and practical estrangement or divergence from the past in the arts and literature occurring especially in the course of the 20^th century” (Dictionary.com: modernism). ↩︎
4. Given that Nietzsche was active in the nineteenth century, he was likely not the father of postmodernism, despite this common appellation (See Ken Gemes, “Postmodernism’s Use and Abuse of Nietzsche,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62, no. 2 [200]): 337–360). The statement, “God is dead” fits quite well with the definition of modernism: “divergence from the past”; essentially, because God is dead, it is time to move on from him. ↩︎
5. Whether postmodernism is truly an enemy of Christianity is a different discussion, but I admittedly conflated the philosophical system with the adherents of the system in that sentence. ↩︎
6. For specific numbers as of 2022, see Center for Disease Control, “Suicide Data and Statistics” (May 13, 2024). Suicide Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/facts/data.html. ↩︎
7. The victim mentality mentioned above is a side effect of hopelessness. ↩︎
8. Moltmann, “Preface,” 9. ↩︎
9. Moltmann, Theology, 23. ↩︎
10. Eschatology is the doctrine of Last Things, and commonly rotates around the question, “When is the Millennium?” Moltmann dislikes this understanding of Eschatology:
    “Christian eschatology does not speak of the future as such. It sets out from a definite reality in history and announces the future of that reality, its future possibilities and its power over the future. Christian eschatology speaks of Jesus Christ and his future. It recognizes the reality of the raising of Jesus and proclaims the future of the risen Lord. Hence the question whether all statements about the future are grounded in the person and history of Jesus Christ provides it with the touchstone by which to distinguish the spirit of eschatology from that of utopia” (Theology, 17). ↩︎
11. Moltmann, Theology, 103–104. He goes on to note, “The word of promise therefore always creates an interval of tension between the uttering and the redeeming of the promise. In so doing it provides man with a peculiar area of freedom to obey or disobey, to be hopeful or resigned.” ↩︎
12. Moltmann, Theology, 197. ↩︎
13. Moltmann, Theology, 298. ↩︎
14. The average American theological student is not properly prepared to interact critically with German scholarship. The last (only?) German we study is Luther, and even he does not get read like he deserves to be read (at least in Baptist seminaries). ↩︎
15. Moltmann, Theology, 338. ↩︎
16. See Donald Macleod, “The Christology of Jürgen Moltmann,” Themelios 24, no. 2 (1999): 35–45. ↩︎
17. One could also feasibly reach his conclusions with a more “acceptable, orthodox” version of theism. ↩︎
18. Macleod, “Christology,” 45. ↩︎
19. Moltmann, Theology, 16. ↩︎
20. Moltmann, Theology, 30. ↩︎
21. Moltmann, Theology, 141. ↩︎