Alright, I'm beginning to dive into some material about hope (the Moltmann book, Theology of Hope, on the left), but before I get too far into it, I want to go ahead and offer how I think about hope currently. First of all, I believe that real hope, hope that has a bite to it, has two essential components. It is essentially a dialectical model, and ommission or neglect of either aspect leads to some substantial problems.
The first component is the perception that something is wrong. I believe that this perception has to go deep for our hope to possess power. This is the "No" aspect, that rejects the status quo as acceptable. This aspect of hope is the recognition of wrongness. It perceives the brokenness in the world, in my brothers and sisters, and in my own heart and soul.
Without this negative side hope falls to apathy. It has no content, save in concepts that are distant and abstract. It becomes disconnected with physical life, and motivates nothing. When we burn with the brokenness of the world in all its concrete reality, hope can take root and have teeth. It can become a formative hope. It can work transformation in how we live and what we live for, exerting its power in life. The recognition of darkness brings us to working with and becoming light. Provided the second aspect is present. more on that tomorrow. Any thought's about the kinds of wrong in the world that can become food for our hope?
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Twitter Updates
Posts
Steven Hovater
Blog Roll
Steven's shared items
Blog Archive
-
▼
2005
(59)
-
▼
February
(25)
- Bama falls
- Hope 2 -Possibility
- Hope 1
- Cleaning out my Inbox
- A short short story
- A Little Help
- g'night now
- Bama beats Hogs
- VH-Day
- Report from Academia
- Steven consuming the best burger in the Rock.
- Little Rock's finest
- Roll Tide!
- OSEA
- Saturday morning writing and playing
- a place to...
- Roll Tide!
- Ash Wednesday Report
- Okay, okay
- Report from fifth period
- Substitute blog
- Picking the Pats
- Come Together
- Woo-hoo for "being" healthy!
- sickly, but working on it
-
▼
February
(25)
7 comments:
I feel that some of your description of what happens when hope is without the "no" side is descriptive of myself. But there's some differences. There's two thoughts I have on this. First, while I certainly have apathy towards everything religious, including my hope, I still haven't lost actual hope. The hope still maintains its content and character but has lost its drive. Second, and this one really doesn't have an answer, but what happens when saying "no" to the world and its wrongness includes saying "no" to one's faith and the church?
No need to answer just some musings from thewalrus.
Yo walrus, actually I think you're probably straighter on this side than on what I was going to post on the second aspect. On your comments:
First, do you think hope can be amatter of degrees? Can we still have some hope, but in a diminished form? And is it wrong to think of hope as a tool, something to be used for a purpose? I'm not sure how comfortable I am with that concept (does it lead to self-manipulation?) but if it is workable, then it makes sense that a weaker hope may be less able to fulfill its functions, and a stronger hope more able.
On the second half of your comment, I assume that saying no does entail some negaiton of the church and of my own faith/life. Perhaps even primarily.
Steve...
Wow, man. Wow.
Last night I was part of a Gospel Coffee House at the Lectureship here. In the planning sessions, the "direction" we chose was to paint a picture of the current reality, show its negative aspects, and then bring in the alternative life that the Gospel proposes. I think this ties in directly with what you're talking about. Without a realization that something is wrong, hope doesn't have any traction. Personally, I don't tend to think about hope seperately from what I hope for. For me, the "hope" is the knowledge that there is something out there, a better way, and it's on its way. Without that concrete essence to the thing hoped for, I think hope becomes "wish" or "desire." In light of this Gospel thing, I think the hope we have is that one day, the reign of God over all creation will be fully manifested. At that point, the "no" we have been fighting will be consumed in this new reality.
And to say something to the walrus...
I don't know what your experience has been with church, or with religion, or with religious people. My hope is that "church" will be a support group for people who are saying "NO" to the world, to reality as it is now. I want to belong to a church that longs for and is hopeful of the day when everything wrong in this world will be done away with. I want church to be a community of people who aren't satisfied with the status quo, and who have chosen to accept the statements of Jesus when he said that "the Kingdom of God has come near." This fact, that we live between times (the inbreaking of God's reign and the end, when it is fully implemented) makes "church" an indispensible part of my reality. It is like the travellers on the Nebuchadnezzer in the Matrix...we know what's out there, and we have to stick together. The Agents are trying to convince us we are wrong, and only by meeting together, sharing lives, seeing that the Gospel works in this world...only then can we survive.
Sorry for the long comment, but this is right up my alley. Keep on blogging!
stevepvc,
My feeling is that hope, at least existentially, does have degrees. In essence? I have no idea.
I'm not sure I know what you mean by the utility of hope stuff.
GKB,
I'm not convinced that saying "no" to the "world" is the same as saying "no" to "reality as it is now." It all, of course, depends on what you mean by these things but I think the content of the "no" within hope is not the "world" per se; rather, the "no" within hope is (1) the full embrace of the despair within that world and (2) the willingness/desire to move beyond that despair.
In my opinion, we haven't fully grasped the meaning of (1). My professor John Weborg reminded me once that the reasons Catholics use depictions of the cross with the body of Christ still nailed to it (as opposed to Protestants) is because (a good priest would say) you can't get to the hope of the resurrection without going through the absolute despair (and betrayal) of the cross. God betrayed his son on the cross (and I think we have to face/experience that betrayal in whatever form in our lives) but he also kept his promise and liberated him from death. It's just that for some reason the promise means nothing without the betrayal, ironically enough.
Just some initial thoughts. Thanks for your comments.
thewalrus,
I think I see what you're getting at, let me know if I am off-base.
You're saying that for the mountain to be there, there has to be a valley, or at least a plain. Hope can only exist when we realize the wrongness of our situation, or as you put it, have been (or have felt) betrayed. I guess it's like a guy going around offering free engines, and if you're operating under the assumption that your engine is just fine, then you won't have any interest in what he's offering. Is that an accurate assessment?
the walrus is close to what I see the no addressed to, although I think it may even be broader than that. I believe there are different aspects to the evil I'm writing about. despair is one way of saying it, although there may be other ways of expressing it as well. It may be that different parts of the church see it differently because they are more aware of different aspects of wrongness.
GKB,
It's also about time. One must spend significant time in the valley to really understand the meaning of the mountain. Our tendency is towards comfort and thus we hike on up the mountain, hang out at the top, feel powerful, and enjoy the view. Which is precisely why it isn't hope.
stevepvc,
I will respond to yours under your second post.
Post a Comment