A Critique of Jürgen Moltmann's Green Theology.

Abstract

Jiirgen Moltmann became famous for his brilliantly perceptive studies on the tasks of theology, first: to answer a despairing world with a Theology of Hope, and second: to answer a world which could no longer believe in God’s existence in the midst of evil with The Crucified God.’ While the first book stressed the resurrection of the crucified one as the basis for our hope, the second stressed the reality of Christ’s death in concrete solidarity with our suffering.As we might expect, the dominant question of theology then was in relation to the future of humanity, and the fashion in German theological discussions was a focus on history, rather than a concern with creation as such. However, even at this stage, Moltmann’s vision showed tendencies to look beyond that of a narrow understanding of our humanity, so that he aimed to include creation as a whole within the orbit of both the suffering and future hope in Christ. His novelty at this stage was to reject all ideas of a search for a return to an ideal paradisical state, the so-called ‘myth of eternal return’. Such views had become part of the traditional cosmological interpretation of our world which had been challenged by post-enlightenment science. Once humankind perceived its relationship with the world as one of mastery over nature, the ‘cosmological’ proof of God from creation was no longer convincing. Moltmann does not want us to regain our sense of security by returning to a facile cosmology, but insists that we put our hope in the God of the Future, who promises a new creation as witnessed by the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Life in its fullness: Ecology, eschatology and ecodomy in a time of climate change

“…231-232) David Rhoads calls it by the name: 'We are nature' and we should not think of ourselves 'as living on Earth' but rather 'embedded in it' (eds.Buxton & Habel 2016:xi). CeliaDeane-Drummond (2017: loc. 2217, loc.…”