Talk:Jürgen Moltmann

Untitled
It looks like there's a date discrepancy in the article. He is a prisoner of war in various camps from 1945 to 1948 ... then later he returns to Germany and is then invited to a conference in Derby in 1947 .... something doesn't seem right and I suspect 1948 is wrong and probably would have returned to Germany in something like 1946. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.76.158 (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Moltmann as a theologian
If anyone knows more about Moltmann as an actual theologian (as opposed to "why he became a theologian"), this page needs it. Jwrosenzweig 18:12, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same, and it's three years later now. This page says nothing about what Moltmann's views are. It's almost as if the author(s) were deliberately trying to avoid saying anything about why he matters as a theologian. I came here from The God Delusion, which mentions Terry Eagleton contending that Moltmann would be important to read for critics of religion. This article gives me no impression why that should be so. is a better source of information than this article; we might find something of value in the reference works that page lists. 82.95.254.249 12:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I would love to add some information on Moltmann's theological views. However I am only an undergraduate Theology student (university of Durham in the UK) and therefore must caution the reader to take my contribution provisionally...Despite having a fervent interest in what Moltmann has to say, I am not an expert. Now, with this in mind, onto the Theology!

Of first importance, Moltmann is ruthlessly Christocentric. Christian Theology, in order to be Christian, cannot have anything other than Christ at its centre. Thus the fact that 'God became man' must characterise theology faith and practice. From this basis Moltmann believes Theology is opened up to the world and enabled to enagage fully with all its problems. Jesus is God engaging with humanity...thus when theology makes Jesus its object, it surprises us by turning also to every component of what it means to be human. It becomes concerned with all human affairs and the agonies of human existence. A Theology with Christ at its centre engages with suffering, injustice, politcal oppression etc. This type of Theology may perhaps be termed an 'incarnational' theology.

Moltmann thus delves deep into the Incarnation, finding therein the hallmarks of Christian Salvation. In the Incarantion we see God's Redemptive work operating NOT by God ejecting humanity from the troubles of this world...But rather by suffering alongside mankind in his troubles, offering fellowhip in the place of suffering. FUNDAMENTALLY, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection MUST be seen together, not as two seperate works on the part of God. Together they are a picture of how God goes about Redemption.

In this picture God joins man in his falleness and everything entailed (this includes sin but also injustice, suffering, torment etc). Yet this ACT of identification, up to and including death, is the basis of the Resurrection, Salvation, Liberation and Redemption. Thus the response of Christianity to the world's problems CANNOT be an escapism.. but rather to (like Jesus) redeem these situations by engaging with them. This may perhaps be termed 'incarnational' ministry.

Moltmann therefore, sees 'Hope', not as an escapism but as something with a concrete expression that ACTS to change present reality. Whilst 'Hope' does anticipate future liberation, it begins by transforming present reality...making even suffering into something meaningful.

Furthermore, we see here that central to Christ's identity is an act of self-emptying love... Love for neighbour. Thus Chriatin identity is not established through self-justification or apologetics, but rather through self-emptying love for neighbour.

Many of Moltmann's idea I have mentined here may be found in 'The Crucified God' and in 'An Experiment Hope'

I hope these contributions help.. I would much appreciate feedback on how useful you find what I have offered here. Please fell free to mae criticisms of it also. William Emtage Wsemtage 18:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you've made a good job of reshaping this page. I'm a bit out of practice in this area, so I'm only modifying the main page itself in detail, but hoped to open up discussion a bit here.Sjwells53 (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Eschatology
The article mentions Pentecostalism as a source for eschatological ideas. I can think of little less relevant or appropriate in this context. I would have thought that the elephant in the room throughout the article is Rudolf Bultmann, who, while insisting that it had to be demythologised, constantly stressed the centrality of eschatology as the force shaping New Testament theology.Sjwells53 (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Revelation
On second thoughts, perhaps there is a small herd of concealed elephants loose here. In particular, I think someone needs to relate Moltmann to Wolfhart Pannenberg. Ultimately all German theologians have to grapple with German philosophy as much as German critical scholarship. This means some sort of encounter with, or position in relation to, Hegel.

Hegel radically reinterprets the Christian tradition by making history in its totality the complete revelation of Spirit, i.e. God. Pannenberg's meditation on Hegel led him to locate as central a specific historical event, the Resurrection, which he portrays as the proleptic revelation of the meaning of history, and therefore of God. This is why he insists on the historicity of the Resurrection.

Moltmann is in critical dialogue with Pannenberg. Drawing on Bultmann's eschatology, he insists on the Cross as the event that breaks open history and turns it into a history of hope and freedom. He is interesting to secularists precisely because he insists on the most radical merging of sacred and profane in the crucifixion of God. In this, he he knows perfectly well that he is working theologically through Marx's most radical critique of Hegelianism (cf. Theses against Feuerbach). Whereas theologians have sought to understand the world (revelation), the point is to change it (working through hope). This leads Moltmann to a Trinitarian dialectic of history.Sjwells53 (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Source for Kitamori's influence
I just saw on the website www.findarticles.com

that Moltmann used Kitamori's (1946) Theology of the Pain of God.This would be a source, but if any one has a written source for this information, please add it. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right about the influence, which was ambivalent, and I've referenced it, along with pointing to some wider influences.Sjwells53 (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Existentialist?
Why? In what sense?Sjwells53 (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)