DISQUS

Calvin Wulf · 3 months ago

Thank you, Blake. I'll watch for more. Each of us has a story. I'm wondering if theology as biography might lead to an understanding of Jesus that reveals the depth of his grace and compassion. The trauma of my early childhood has grown into a sensitivity for others that shapes my theology of the gospel. As we form theology out of biography, will we grow in grace and compassion? I hope we do.

Blake Huggins · 3 months ago

I do think that is the goal. And as a Wesleyan I can't help but continue striving to "go on to perfection" and grow grace upon grace as an individual in community so that I may be more in line with the Imago dei. And there is much depth to that. That's part of the reason why I love the parables of Jesus because they are so multivocal. Each time I read them I am confronted with another layer that demands transformation. I think that perhaps theology as biography and biography as the embodied outworking of theology might make that more tangible and real for us too.

Ryan Bell · 3 months ago

I really had Caputo's, The Weakness of God, in my mind a lot of the time, too.

Blake Huggins · 3 months ago

That would've been a great question to ask Moltmann. I was just thumbing through Caputo earlier and he mentions Moltmann a few times in passing. I wonder what Moltmann thinks of that work?

jbonewald · 3 months ago

I remember in a class I took on Bonhoeffer being so thoroughly impressed with not only how his biography informed his theology but how his theology helped him live through the issues he confronted. In so many ways they were one in the same; an integrated whole. I see the same in Moltmann, a tremendous level of personal and theological integrity.

Don Heatley · 3 months ago

Blake,
A a fellow Wesleyan I would add that "theology as biography" really fits in well w/ the "Personal Experience" side of the Quadrilateral. Then again, if you're a true postmodern, isn't it all personal experience anyway ;-)

Sorry we didn't get a chance to meet @ Moltmann. I kept trying to figure out who you were but was unsuccessful. Maybe next time.
Don

Blake Huggins · 3 months ago

Ah, I didn't realize you were a fellow Wesleyan! I get accused of over-emphasis on the experience side sometimes. Maybe I'll start referencing Moltmann as well as Wesley.

Sorry we didn't get to meet too. It was hard for to pick some people out -- especially when all you have to go by is a Twitter icon!

Hopefully we can do that someday soon.

Jeremy · 3 months ago

Here's some quotes from Bonhoeffer's Christ the Center that seem relevant to the idea of the suffering/weak God.

“If Jesus Christ is to be described as God, then we may not speak of this divine essence, of his omnipotence and his omniscience, but we must speak of this weak man among sinners, of his cradle and cross. When we consider the Godhead of Jesus, then above all we must speak of his weakness. In christology one looks at the whole historical man Jesus and says of him, ‘He is God.’ One does not look at a human nature, and then beyond it to a divine nature; one meets the one man Jesus Christ, who is fully god.” (108)

“We say of the Humiliated One, “This is God.’ He makes none of his divine properties manifest in his death. On the contrary, all we see is a man doubting in God as he dies. But of this man we say, ‘This is God.’ Anyone who cannot do this does not know the meaning of ‘God became man.’ (110)

Jeremy · 3 months ago

With regards to Moltmann's view of Caputo, I have not heard him comment anywhere on his work. However, I do know that Pannenberg tended to dismiss postmodern thought as a fad, although he's more of a rationalist than Moltmann. I mean it's hard for me to really imagine Moltmann and Caputo having much of a conversation. The Crucified God is such a rich theological exploration of the suffering of God. Whereas Caputo's books for me tends to shy away from outright theological investigations because of his hesitancy to relapse into onto-theology. For me, Moltmann influenced liberation theology tremendously and certainly inspired many of the the Latin American theologians. He generally stayed within the confines of orthodoxy throughout his career. On the other hand, Caputo offers his radical theology somewhat outside the Christian tradition. At least, one gets that impression from his skepticism of Vattimo's weak thought (which is really just a diluted death-of-God theology) because of its over-dependence on the incarnation (i.e. Christianity). Also Caputo never engages any real Christian theology although he does attempt his own atonement theory. If you remember Caputo's discussion of his view of the atonement in ATDG, his version, "For we are laid claim to by this spectacle, by the cry against unjust persecution that issues from the dangerous memory of this scene, by the astonishing spectacle of greeting hatred with love, of answering persecution not with retribution but with forgiveness" I mean this doesn't strike me as that different from Abelard's view. Not to mention he often very subtly works in statements that "The crucified body of Jesus is a site-one among many-of divine eventiveness, through which there comes a stream of events that traverse our bodies and shock the world under the name of the weakness of God, and we are able to make ourselves worthy of this event". The cross for Moltmann (given his close association btw the immanent/economic Trinity) is much more than just one site of divine eventiveness. In fact, this event profoundly affects the Godhead itself. It is the paradigmatic historical/theological event. I believe Moltmann's theological explorations of the cross go strongly beyond any debates between substitution vs. moral-influence theory.

I'm sorry for the long discussion, but I guess I tend to not see Caputo and Moltmann being in agreement on a theological level. Sure, both would advocate fighting for the oppressed, but they by no means would be in total agreement. I really think Caputo's theology has deeper roots in liberal theology whereas Moltmann was greatly influenced by Barth. Not to mention, even Zizek agrees with Caputo's view of the cross (stemming back to Bonhoeffer), but obviously Zizek and Caputo come down on very different sides of current philosophical/political debates.

Blake Huggins · 3 months ago

See, I think it is those disagreements that would make a conversation or reading of one with the other mind so interesting!

I would have to think about it more but I wonder if maybe Moltmann doesn't go far enough in The Crucified God in an area that perhaps Caputo does. I'm thinking primarily of omnipotence. Moltmann wants to hold on to that -- probably because, as you point out, he stands squarely in the German/Barthian theological tradition -- by claiming that God simply resigned God's power in the Cross event. I wonder if this is not radical enough and if perhaps it is not that God is resigning power, but that God doesn't have the power. Of course, Moltmann would argue that it is God's deep love which keeps God from intervening as Christ suffers, but by keeping the omnipotence card in his back pocket I think his argument is weakened a bit. And I'm not so sure that there isn't some residual theodicy issues there as well. If God is omnipotent that question will always be haunting us in the background. So here I think Caputo is much more convincing and actually makes Moltmann's statements about the crucified and suffering God in Christ much more powerful (no pun intended).

Of course there are other major disagreements, but the power issue has really been on my mind lately. Your question about eventiveness is an interesting one. I'd have to think about that a bit more. Right now I want to go more with Moltmann on that -- I find his ideas about the cross event affecting the very nature of the Godhead very compelling.

Anyway, no worries about the long post. I enjoy it. Thanks for the feedback!

Jeremy · 3 months ago

So I hate to do this shameless self-promoting, but I recently posted on my blog some quotes by Zizek and Freud about the impotence and murder of God from the Puppet and the Dwarf and Moses and Monotheism, respectively. I also have written a series of six blog posts about the death of God from the perspective of Freud, Nietzsche, Altizer, Bonhoeffer, Taylor, and the apocalyptic Kingdom. I think some of these posts offer a helpful understanding of the relationship between transcendence, weakness, suffering, and the apocalypse. For instance, I'm sure you're familiar with Zizek's work where he discusses the relationship between the impotence of God in relation to the Job and the Cross. Likewise, Freud speculated that Christianity eclipsed Judaism because it moved from a religion of the father to a religion of the son. I'd read Totem and Taboo to delve deeper into the psychoanalytic relationship between trauma, death, repetition, the Eucharist, and original sin.

barryballard · 5 days ago

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=HINCABA8: lecture seven on moltmann