Moltmann and Bloesch on the Role of Eschatology Compared
In
coming to a balanced appreciation of Moltman’s contribution in stimulating
dialogue between postliberal and evangelical theology, a comparison of Moltmann’s, The Coming of God: Christian
Eschatology and Bloesch’s The Last Things: Resurrection, Judgment.
Both Moltmann and Bloesch have been
influenced by Barth, though neither embraces the full Barthian project even as
both have been significantly shaped by his mentoring voice throughout their
respective careers. In addition, Bloesch
accepts a great many of Moltmann’s reflections on God’s infusion into human
experience and nature, including broad similarities with his eschatology, while
maintaining a sharper appreciation for the more classical depiction of God’s
transcendence as a reflection of his holiness in which distance and closeness
play equally prominent roles.
On the matter of eschatology, consider Moltmann’s rejection of any notion of “last things” where he posits instead, the coming of God within the stream of time, even in its reconstitution in new heaven and new earth. To be sure, Bloesch does speak of God himself “bring[ing] the world into subjection to the advancing kingdom of Christ.” This clearly has close resonances with God’s “coming” in the Moltmannian vein.[i] Deep affinities reside in both of what they reject and what they embrace, notwithstanding critically important divergences on the relative role of transcendence to that of immanence. First Bloesch:
I uphold
that part of the millennial vision that includes the promise of a transfigured
earth anticipated in Christ’s resurrection and powerfully carried forward at
his second advent. In the millennium
Christ with his glorified saints proceeds to extend his rule over the kingdom
of this world, but his rule is hidden and will become manifest in the period of
millennial glory following the return of Christ.[ii]
As similarly
put by Moltmann:
What hope
is awakened through the lived and suffered community with Christ? It is the hope that, just as we have
participated in Christ’s mission and his suffering, we may also share in his
resurrection and his life: those who die
with him will live with him too. But
what resurrection is meant? It is the
special and messianic ‘resurrection’ from
the dead’, not the universal and eschatological resurrection of the dead. But the resurrection from the dead necessarily leads into a reign of Christ before the
universal raising of [italics in
original] the dead for the Last Judgment.
That is to say, it leads into a messianic kingdom in history before the
end of the world, or into a transitional kingdom leading from this transitory
world-time to the new world that is God’s.[iii]
Thus,
the broad affinities between the prominent ecumenicist-leaning evangelical who
played such a pivotal role in the founding of the conservative leaning Biblical
Witness Fellowship and the world renowned theologian who has exhibited such a
powerful influence among the major liberationist theologies of the past three
decades. The similarities stem from an embrace of eschatological hope as a new
20th century key against a great deal of “realized” eschatology in
the first coming of Christ, combined with emphasis on the indwelling bestowal
of the Holy Spirit as a continuous source of presence and hope in its own right. Equally significant is the post-millennial, or
what Bloesh would prefer to identify as a “transmillennial” vision of the penultimate
reign of Christ as the final harbinger of the full reigning glory of the coming
of God against an apolitical pre-millennial apocalyptic vision of radical separation
of the sheep and the goats culminating in the reign of Christ beyond the pale
of history.
One
of the subtle differences in nuance between Moltmann and Bloesch is that for
the latter there is a greater focus on the “the dawning of [God’s] millennial glory”
unfolding “within history, not just at the end of history” in which the
partiality of God’s revelation will continue even in the apotheosis of the
final coming.[iv] In
this respect the influence of Barth and Reinhold Niebuhr are more pervasive
than with Moltmann in which there is less of an emphasis on eschatology with
Bloesch as a central theme of his theology. Consequently, Bloesch refers to his view as “a
realizing eschatology in which the kingdom of God bursts into history as an invading
force of righteousness” as an ongoing presence throughout the stream of time.
Thus,
for Bloesch, “the dawning of the millennium” occurs as “both present and
future” whenever and wherever the spirit of “Christ’s lordship” appears.[v] God’s elusive presence in the ongoing odyssey
of the “pilgrimage of faith” in which the eschaton is always coming but never
fully appears, is never and can never be fully swallowed up, even as, in the
most literal sense hope springs eternal through God’s beneficent graces, as
manifest in the present and in the time to come.[vi] In this respect eschatology is critical to
both of their theologies even as Bloesch lays greater emphasis on the graces of
God’s presence as exhibited within the gap between the already and not
yet. This includes a more substantial
position for the role of the church and the mighty cloud of witnesses of the
2000 year tradition than seems evident in Moltmann’s philosophical theology
with its prevailing apologetic and distinctively eschatological overtones.
No comments:
Post a Comment