Jürgen Moltmann, Politics & Non-Identity
May 13, 2011 6 Comments
Upon reading the first sub-section in chapter one of Jürgen Moltmann’s The Crucified God, I couldn’t help but notice an undercurrent that I felt related to my recent post on Christian Anarchy. This first sub-section, called “The Crisis of Relevance in the Christian Life” tells us that “the more theology and the church attempt to become relevant to the problems of the present day, the more deeply they are drawn into the crisis of their own Christian identity.” (7) He then tells us that “reflection upon the cross leads to the clarification of what can be called Christian identity and what can be called Christian relevance…” (7)
Moltmann gets more specific, telling us how theologians, the church and lay-people take upon themselves certain theological identities, whether they be political, critical, anthropological, social, etc. Holding to such identities divides the church into sects and denominations due to the tightly held identities for which those in such churches associates themselves with. These identities in turn create a lack of true Christianity by removal of the focus of the cross, what Moltmann deems the most truly Christian and the act for which gives us our non-identities.
Moltmann’s justification of this idea is remarkable:
When the Christian community feels obliged to empty itself in certain social and political actions, it must take care that its traditional religious and political identity is not exchanged for a new religious and political identity, but must sustain its non-identity. Otherwise a church which, seeking for an identity and political movement, once again becomes the ‘religion of society.’ … But can a Christian community or church ever become the ‘political religion’ of its existing or future society, without forgetting the man from Nazareth who was crucified, and losing the identity it has in the cross? … Thus even in the ‘classless society’ Christians will be aliens and homeless. Where solidarity is achieved, this distinction must be observed. It is a criticism of the traditional solidarity of the more recent attempts to establish solidarity with democratic and socialist forces. Not of course in the same way, because the cross does not make the world equal by bringing down the night in which everything looks alike, but by enabling people to criticize and stand back from the partial historical realities and movements which they have idolized and made absolute. It follows from these reflections upon the concrete political problems of Christian life, that the question of identity comes to a head only in the context of non-identity, self-emptying for the sake of others and solidarity with others. It cannot be established in isolation, but only revealed in contact with others. In exile one seeks a home. In alienation one seeks identity. Love is revealed in the hatred and peace in conflict. Thus the place where the question of identity can meaningfully be asked is the situation of the crisis of identity brought about by meaningful self-emptying and solidarity. (17-18, emphasis added)
It seems to me that Moltmann is speaking here of an emptying, a crisis, a removal of all that we associate ourselves with that does not bring us the cross, that which truly removes ones identity. He justifies this by saying that the suffering and solidarity that is found on the cross is really the only proverbial ‘ground’ that those who choose to engage with the Christian life can ‘stand on’. It is not our politics, not our families or homes, it is not our nations or loud voices. To truly live the Christian life we must become aliens, as Christ became truly alien on the cross.
So here is the question of the day: if we are to self-empty and crucify our identities, how does such alienation relate to our ‘civic duty’, our national identities and our politics? Are we to truly become passive in our civic duties?
“So here is the question of the day: if we are to self-empty and crucify our identities, how does such alienation relate to our ‘civic duty’, our national identities and our politics? Are we to truly become passive in our civic duties?”
I don’t believe the point was passivity. I believe the point was identity. Identity determines destiny (action). It’s not about whether or not we act, but rather how we act. Our actions are determined in part by our identity, who we believe ourselves to be.
I think the real question is in the first half of your question – “What does it practically look like to self-empty and crucify our identities?”
The issue of ‘identity’ is of prime significance, especially in our times.
Hey Nathan!
If it is about ‘how we act’, might (non)action also be considered a paradoxical action? That is how many pacifists define and justify their stance on (non)action: that through their (non)action, they make a (non)political statement and resist the powers that be.
As for the concept of identity, in this first sub-section of the chapter, Moltmann seems to be leading into the idea that we self-empty anything we hold onto in our Christian identities that are non-Christian; he would also say that to be truly Christian to is center all theology around the cross, for without the reality of the cross, all that is Christian is void of true meaning and matter. Thus, anything political we pick up along the way is not at all Christian, but a sectarian departure for which we associate ourselves with. By nature of association we often allow it to become wrongly a part of our Christian worldview. What Moltmann seems to be saying is that we as Christian communities are to no take any specific stance on politics, culture, etc., as if we actually know what the right or wrong stance is, for such things have little to do with the cross.
I do indeed agree with the question of “how then do we crucify our identities?” Do you have any ideas of how one might continually do that?
I also appreciate your comments, Nathan. Thanks again!
Being married into a Mennonite family, I know a few things about anabaptist style pacifism. In fact, in WW2, my wife’s Grandfather was a ‘contentious objector.’ For them, peace making is not about non-action, but rather choosing an alternative positive action. I think this really is key, not that we do nothing (as a ‘statement’) but that we rather choose to do things that are just and more likely to produce right relationships. I also question – how effective are ‘actions of silence’ at conveying a message with any significant potency? When looking at the cross event, I certainly don’t see it as passive or an act of silence.
Back to the context of your original statement about not voting, this idea might look like a purposefully spoiled ballot (spoiled in such a way that it will be counted as such), or possibly choosing the ‘protest candidate’. Random ideas, but I think such actions would send a more potent message with some non-violent force.
Re: Moltmann and identity. Does he continue to keep it narrow with the cross as the only viewpoint? I would fully agree with the necessity for finding our ‘identity in Christ’. But I wouldn’t limit it to the cross. His incarnation, life and resurrection are certainly very valuable aspects of Jesus with which to identify. And as an addendum to that, I’d say that our primary identification is not so much with an event as it is with a person.
If we’re identifying with the person of Christ and truly see ourselves as being ‘in Christ,’ I believe that how we view and interact with our world in the area of politics, faith denominations, and any other exclusive group identification will completely change. If we’ve encountered him and have passed from death to life, living life in the flesh to life in the Spirit, these things will change.
“What Moltmann seems to be saying is that we as Christian communities are to no take any specific stance on politics, culture, etc., as if we actually know what the right or wrong stance is, for such things have little to do with the cross.”
I’m curious as to how he would unpack that and qualify that idea. The cross itself takes a stance on politics, religion, culture and makes a grand statement for the whole world to see. It makes a spectacle of evil power and authority and triumphs over them. The preaching and demonstration of the Kingdom along with the resurrection as manifest in Jesus also take stances and make statements about what brings life and what brings death. Even though Jesus does take ‘stances,’ I don’t know however, that we can or should form a ‘system’ around such a thing. To me that seems to be dangerously close (if not) to countering what it means to live ‘in the Spirit.’
In another context, I can certainly agree with the apparent statement. For example, the equation of conservative politics to Christianity, to me, seems “false.” (I’m being polite here for your more conservative readers.) (But liberal readers should not get too excited as I believe the same about them.) Conservative ideologies have very little in common with Jesus, the cross, etc. There are systems like these that people often identify with that have little or nothing to do with Jesus and his kingdom. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t issues that appear within these systems that Jesus and the kingdom do not address.
As far as crucifying our identities, Galatians 2:20 immediately comes to mind. But I see this as the NT process of moving out of ‘life in the flesh’ and into ‘life in the Spirit.’ It is ‘in the flesh’ that all our carnal identifications come. And it is ‘in the Spirit’ that those carnal identifications are put to death (“crucified with Christ”) and our identification with the person of Jesus can come alive.
Pastorally, I see this important NT message often ignored. We tend to live out our lives ‘in the flesh’ with ‘Christian clothing’ rather than taking on a whole new life.
Great discussion…
If we look at the formula for basic identity we see a proposition I am = X which on some level may be translated A = A.
‘Identities’ which ought to be emptied out are characterized by formulas like the following:
I am = [any nationality]
I am = [any denomination of Christianity]
I am = [any quality by definition exclusive]
The only identity worthy of being retained is:
I am = a child of God.
But only in so far as it may be generalized thus:
We are (all) = children of God.
While I am no scholar of Moltmann (yet), I would argue that he implies the self-emptying we must go through also relates to the formula “I am = a child of God” in so much that we might (un)loose such an identity. That is to say, that we might live in the paradox and tension between being children of God, while also feeling the alienation that comes through the doubt and suffering we experience through our identity alienation, which leads us to lament, homelessness and alienation. It seems Moltmann is a man of both/and, instead of either or.
I appreciate your focus on the communal idea of “We are (all) = children of God.” Would you mind unpacking that a bit, as to how you come to that conclusion?
I am no Moltmann scholar either. His books make me impatient.
But you suggest a final emptying is implied in Moltmann’s challenge – and I suggest that this has to be its form if it is not to ask the impossible. Moltmann loves to make the rhetorical flourish, but I think my plural case for ‘final identity’ we are (all) children of God represents a mode of self-emptying entirely possible for what I am calling the absolutely irreducible identity of the form I am a child of God.
I think anything else would have to be a pose. You can’t empty the whole thing. I think we are called to empty out the false self – not the true self. When I can look on all ‘others’ as children of the same father, I reach a perspective from which I am claiming no special privilege (therefore am emptied) but I don’t surrender self-in-relation to God or in relation to humanity.