This post will make more sense if you have read the previous post, Hope 1, and the comments that followed it. That discussion is not finished yet, but I wanted to go ahead and make this post to lay the rest of my hand on the table.
The second aspect of hope as I see it now is the belief in the possibility of change. This means that I recognize not only present evil , but that evil can be overcome. This aspect of hope is possibly the more popularized notion, but it needs to be nuanced. First, I don't believe that this hope has to be totally oriented towards God's intervention in the end of time. That would only allow hope for my personal soul, and would only motivates me towards individual piety. It probably doesn't even motivate a healthy form of that. But what about hope for and in the world? Do we believe that the wrong we see around us (please don't misunderstand what I mean by that to be limited to oversimplified morality) can be made right? Can evil give way to goodness? Here hope is linked directly to faith, and brings us to a place of risk. Hope risks delusion. We don't wish to be pollyannas walking around telling everyone that everything's going to be okay (there's a reason for this, it's all part of the plan, etc.) and that God will fix things, particularly if he won't. So we take a much safer route, saying "God will take me to heaven when I die" which is a hope that has virtually no risk at all, and probably no use at all.
There is danger in not believing as well. Only claiming the first aspect of hope, the recognition of wrong, leaves us in cynicism. From my own perspective, cynicism is an unbelievable threat to ministry. Without overgeneralizing, it seems that there are so many people in ministry vocations that fall helpless to cynicism, because while they can see clearly the things that are wrong in the world, they have lost touch with the belief that things can be otherwise, with possibility. So we are left with a corps of people who should be, in a positive sense, change agents, but are powerless because they do not believe in the possibility of change. This is hopelessness. This is despair. This, on it's own, is useless. If I am right and this description of the church's leadership is correct, then it explains much of the church's impotence around the world. It's not as much that the church is dead(although there may be use for that description, too)...It's that the church is just waiting to die. It has traded its powerful hope for a useless one.
So there must be a place for the "yes" of possibility. For the church, that yes comes from the power of God, which is able to defeat even our enemy death. It comes from the power of God to bring about change in our own hearts and souls and lives. The yes is spoken and lived as we become different, and thus see the possiblity that all around us could be made new, that the death around us can give way to life, darkness be overcome by light. This is true hope, not blind to the darkness, but not blind to the power of light, either.
Partly because of the discussion thread on the last post, there is a question in my mind about the utility of hope, and now one about the utility of despair. I'll post more about that next week. For now let me explain (there is no time: let me sum up) my basic understanding hope by this description: Hope is (1)the recognition of wrong combined with (2)the belief that such can become good.
Posts
12 comments:
stevepvc,
Well, I have several reactions to your post. Per your comments in the first paragraph on the individualistic nature of hoping just for the end times: you should check out Bonhoeffer's comments on this in LPP. He talks about how the very idea of one's soul being saved or damned to their respective places is not a Christian idea.
Concerning cynicism, you said: "it seems that there are so many people in ministry vocations that fall helpless to cynicism, because while they can see clearly the things that are wrong in the world, they have lost touch with the belief that things can be otherwise, with possibility." I want to challenge you on a few things here and I'll leave it up to you whether you want to discuss this aspect.
I don't think cynicism is an "unbelievable threat" to ministry at all. In fact, I would say that the reason why many ministries falter is because they don't have it. Now I'm guessing you're speaking of cynics that don't ever act on their beliefs but there should really be a space for people to experience that as well. The "recognition of wrong" part that you speak of is the part that we skip over too quickly. We label and categorize what is "wrong" and then jump to the solution. I think in order to recognize the wrong, we have to confront it, experience it, fully. Otherwise, we don't understand what we're dealing with.
You also said: "The yes is spoken and lived as we become different, and thus see the possiblity that all around us could be made new, that the death around us can give way to life, darkness be overcome by light." But what would you say to a person that recognizes this possibility, believes in it, and dedicates everything to it...only to find that it's a dead end, for now. I really think a lot of this is about timing. O.k., I'll stop here.
I hope you can discern my passion for being what it is here (and not me just debating).
Dante,
The simple answer to your question is that these posts are my thoughts before digging into Moltmann. That was intentional, so I could track how his writing impacted my thinking...I thought by blogging this I could watch my own thinking develop, and so can you! I've started working through his material now, so further posts will likely me marked by reference to his writing. I'm already getting some ideas about some things he might say, for instance regarding the content of action motivated by Christian hope, but it'll be a couple of days before those really get posted. Maybe Ill email him an invitation to comment on my blog...
...okay, I just got back from visiting tubingen's website, but it doesn't seem to have our professor's email listed. Now, it may be that I just couldn't find it because I can't read German, but I did find is name in a faculty list.
In lieu of his direct comment here, I would welcome anybody who has knowledge of his positions to comment freely.
Walrus,
"Now I'm guessing you're speaking of cynics that don't ever act on their beliefs but there should really be a space for people to experience that as well."
Hey buddy, I think I can answer some of your comments now, but I had a hard time understanding what you meant by "a space for people to experience that as well".
Okay, now please remember that my initial concept is one of balance, and it may be that in the church different voices serve prophetic roles to name different aspects of the balance. So while one perceives rightly that we skip over recognition too quickly, another may perceive just as rightly that the absence of possibility in our thinking leads us to be over-cynical. both voices are very important, and I don't believe necessarily in conflict.
Also this second component is not about saying that everything is alright, or even that it's current trajectory is acceptable. this second aspect deals with open possibilities. Now, of course you guys know I'm not really using cynic in a really technical or exhaustive sense here, but just as shorthand for this basic concept, the inability to believe in positive possibility.
Now concerning someone who has found that what the believe in is, for the time being, a dead end.
This is exactly what hope is about...believing in only what we see being fulfilled isn't hope at all. that's just observation. Hope doesn't come into play until we see that where we are is what seems to be a dead end.
Indeed, it really is about timing...hope isn't something that can be thought about without a concept of time. It looks at the present in light of the open future. So someone who is experiencing the wrongness of the present...my conversation would affirm the wrong they see around them. To deny that reality isn't hope, it's deception. but I would also be stubborn about pointing to the possibility of the future. What we see may be real, but it is not all that is. Now there is much more to say about what the church sees in the content of theose possibilities (nothing until the day of christ? or what about the possibility of God's action in the world until that time?) So I would see the person you describe not as an exemption of our need for hope (and I do think it is a need) but as a prime example of what kind of hope we are talking about. It is important for exactly that person to be able to speak the yes from that place...that is the very place that the yes needs to come from, not from hypocrites who would say that they have everything put together. the yes is spoken and lived, even if not yet realized.
okay, I realize that I should go back and carefully read and revise what I have just written. But, my wife wants me to come home. so If te water is just muddier, tell me what to clear up.
Dante,
First of all the dialectic is not strictly from Barth, but certainly influenced by him. (notably, this is one of the places that Moltmann's thought is helping me.)
On Camp's book, I've only read the first 40 pages or so. I talked with him a little bit about a year ago when I was working ona paper on pacifism, and he was very gracious...I liked the guy, a lot. His book is highly polemical, but that ain't always a bad thing. I think he certainly has someting to say to our faith tradition, and I'm glad it's getting said. I'll check out the other post and your comment there.
System,
What I meant by my comment on those cynics not acting on their beliefs (and this actually is what a lot of this discussion is about) is that the church must allow a space for people to go through stages of cynicism. I should have left the word “ever” out of what I said in the quote. But just because someone isn’t acting on their “cynical” beliefs at a given time doesn’t mean we shouldn’t listen to them. It’s all part of the journey. This also speaks to your balance comment. It’s strange how we’ll tolerate a type of hyper-optimism in the church but when it comes to someone being a little too cynical, we raise the red flag. I’m certainly accepting your concern with cynicism. But instead of it being seen as a threat, cynicism itself should be seen as a positive possibility.
When I said that timing is everything, I wasn’t necessarily talking about a concept of time per se. Rather, that this process of attaining a sense of positive possibility for the future can only be achieved once due time has been spent in the No. In fact, if a person who is in the No goes ahead and tries to perceive open possibilities when in fact they are currently unperceivable, they will have a premature hope. In my opinion, that’s the more serious threat to ministry b/c that person may not perceive for years to come, until circumstance brings them once again to the No, that their hope wasn’t actually hope, but only a concept of it.
Dante,
I think your characterization of my thoughts is accurate, if not better stated.
Gentlemen,
Hmm. It seems like what is emerging in the conversation so far is that there is a balance of the YES and NO aspects of hope, but that there is also a progression in hope from NO to YES. In other words, one cannot experience true hope in both its YES and NO aspects until she has experienced the depths of despair and cynicism. It seems, therefore, that there are large numbers of affluent, North American, suburban, comfortable Christians for whom this kind of hope is out of reach. They have not experienced the depths of the NO (I'm assuming, at least not in the way 3rd world citizens, for instance), so they cannot experience true hope. Is this a logical conclusion drawn from this type of hope? Are there Christians who cannot have true hope because they are not experientially qualified? Better yet, are those who claim to be Christians who have not experienced the NO of hope really Christians at all?
StevenPVC, I will post comments later this week about what I think Moltmann would say about your initial reflections.
I've been thinking more about this and I know it's implicit in these discussions, but I'm seeing more clearly how the YES and NO of hope are embodied in the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. The disciples of Jesus who lived through the death of Christ long enough to realize the reality of the resurrection were forever changed after that experience--they became people of hope. Many of them would go on to lose their lives for the sake of the kingdom of God, largely because they had seen the power of God overcome the depths of despair, cynicism, sin and death in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Just thought I'd throw that little nugget in the mix.
Dante, what do you mean by "suffers" the judgment of the NO?
You're using an experiential term, but can it be "understands the judgment of the No",
or even "hears the judgement of the NO" I think the semantics are important here.
Dante, can you explain what it means to "suffer" judgment? I'm not sure that it makes sense that I have to suffer the judment of God before I can have hope in his promise.
Okay Dante, we're talking past each other a little bit, I think. Here's my question: In what sense do we suffer God's judgment of sin? Is this an experiential event in the time of my life, or something we recgonize in the cross, or see in the world around us? Do I suffer God's judgment on sin when I align myself with the crucified Christ (is this a way to understand baptism?) or how is it possible for me to suffer God's judgment? Do you mean that I cannot hope unless unfortunate things happen to me which I can then attribute to God's judgment of my sin (surely not!)? Or do I suffer the consequences of sin in the world, the fallenness of the world and accept it as the manifestation of God's judgment.
Yes, that is the right word for the question I'm asking. How is God's judgment now manifest in a sufferable way?
I do agree that this recongition is the condition for hope, but I think I would be more inclined to say that right now we hear God's judgment, and come to accept or reject that judgment.
Dante...that old debate metaphor of ships passing in the night...finally we got the lights on each other, and it turns out we're going in the same direction.
Post a Comment