A Final Political Pandering: Reflections on Bonhoeffer's Life Together

I am very ready for this election period to be over. Eleven weeks is far too long for a federal campaign, and as one who went into this election period determined to be aware and informed, I am exhausted of all the political hoopla that has filled my social media feeds and in-person conversations. I attempted to be as non-partisan as possible in my conversations, determined to make the best vote in an unbiased manner.

In my personal opinion, one party has emerged above the others as the clear winner for my vote; a party who has already received my vote as a result of the advanced polls. I have been sitting on a blog post for about a week on why I believe them to be the best choice to vote for, but I have been hesitant to post it.

Now, my hesitancy has not been because I am unsure about whether my vote was the quote-on-quote "right decision"--I firmly believe it is. However, my delay in posting is because I am not sure if it would actually have the intended effect I would want it to have, and that it would arise more as white noise than a call to cast the "best" vote.

The problem with politics is not that people do not want the best for their country--I believe that every person who casts a ballot on Monday (or during the advanced polls) truly believes that the person/party they are voting for will do the best to make Canada the country they believe it should be. Rather, the problem comes in what we believe Canada actually should be. For some, Canada is a nation that is progressive and inclusive, leaders on the world stage. For others, Canada is international peacemakers, quick to aid and always ready to lend a helping hand. For another, Canada is tough on crime, a nation in which it is safe to live and raise a family.

Recently, our small group at church has begin going through Dietrich Bonhoeffer's work Life Together. While this book was not written for such a purpose, as we have begun to go through it, I believe that it can speak to our political actions as Christians in a secular nation. Bonhoeffer, who would eventually face death for his actions, does not seem to be overly concerned with creating a "Christian" nation. Rather, his concern seems to be primarily how can we be Christians inside this nation? Bonhoeffer argues that we cannot be Christians in isolation, but rather that all of our faith is determined by how we interact within community. For Bonhoeffer, "we should seek and find His living Word in the witness of a brother [or sister], in the mouth of man [or woman]" (23).

Bonhoeffer takes very seriously the influence of the Christian in the secular world. He does so not in an effort to make all conform to his beliefs, but rather acted in a way that emphasized the needs of the other. In his words, "Christianity means community through Jesus Christ and in Jesus Christ. No Christian community is more or less than this" (21). In community, we are to take the commands of Christ seriously. These find their pinnacle in the call to the aid of one's neighbour, to put emphasis on the needs of the other before that of ourselves.

It is this understanding of the Gospel as good news for all people that I simply cannot get away from as I have been wading through the waters of politics over these last eleven weeks. Which parties take seriously the needs of those without proper housing, those who are in prison, those who are sick, those who are disabled. And that is only within our nation's borders. Then there is the crisis involving Syrian refugees, the global climate crisis, and international humanitarian aid for the poor and marginalized.

This is my final plea to Canadian voters who would identify themselves as Christians: take seriously the needs of the other as you vote. If you are a male, take seriously the needs of females. If you are young, take seriously the needs of seniors. If you are white, take seriously the needs of Aboriginals. If you are a Christian, take seriously the needs of Muslims.

Earlier this week, one of my undergraduate professors, Dr. Randall Holm, posted an open letter to Christian voters on his Facebook page, and I would like to end this post in the same way he did, by quoting the late Jewish scholar Emanuel Levinas. It was Levinas who stated that "the portal to the holy is in the face of the other." I believe Bonhoeffer would agree with this statement, that our only path to Jesus Christ is in the community of others, and that is my desire as we cast our votes on Saturday, that in looking around for the needs of the other perhaps we would catch a glimpse of the Holy.

Hoping in Hope: Is Eschatology Central to the Gospel?

Approximately two months ago, I began the journey that was my first encounter with Jurgen Moltmann in his first major work, Theology of Hope. While I would say that I am relatively new to the study of theology proper, Moltmann, a self-professing disciple of Karl Barth, found his way into my bookshelf. And so I read.

As the title blatantly states, Moltmann's Theology of Hope is about just that: hope as it is found in the Christian proclamation and life. However, Moltmann's understanding of hope in the Christian sense is much broader than the common modern vernacular. While one may hope that their favorite sports team wins a game, or that they may acquire the latest gadget, or even that they may get a raise at work, this hope in which those within society so commonly speak of does great injustice to what Moltmann argues the Christian hope functions as.

To understand Moltmann's argument throughout this book, one needs to have a much broader understanding of eschatology than what is commonly preached in modern, evangelical churches. Depending on who is speaking, eschatology has many different definitions. According to Merriam-Webster, eschatology is "a branch of theology concerned with the final events in the history of the world or of humankind." Eschatology.com goes even with a much simpler definition, arguing that eschatology is simply "the study of last things." Unfortunately, these simplistic definitions of eschatology are the definitions that I was exposed to growing up, even into my first year of study at Briercrest College (no disrespect to Briercrest, I just think my first-year theology prof needs a broader understanding of eschatology). 

For Moltmann, such an understanding of eschatology will simply not do. As I stated in my previous blog post, Moltmann's theology comes out of a war-torn German society, one void of most--if not all--hope. This leads Moltmann to his understanding of eschatology, which he spends the entirety of a whole chapter unpacking (and his chapters are loooong). However, to attempt to sum up said chapter, Moltmann's understanding of eschatology could be understood much better as "the eschaton breaking transcendentally into history . . . [as] the promise which has stamped the language, the hope, and the experience of Israel" (39-41). For Moltmann, eschatology is not simply about future events, but, to be understood properly, must take into consideration all of history. 

Moltmann's argument spans the entirety of the Bible, beginning with the promise given to the Israelites, which "announces the coming of a reality that does not yet exist" while at the same time binding humanity to the future (103). To understand the promise of Yahweh, one must look at the situation into which the proclamation was given to the end goal of what the proclamation is all about. In the briefest of fashions, this is Moltmann's understanding of eschatology: a historical view that encompasses past and present, in an effort to look forward to the future into the reality in which we will dwell. 

So how does this understanding of eschatology fit into the Christian Gospel? For many evangelicals, the Gospel is presented as some form of Anselm of Canterbury's Penal Substitutionary Atonement, where there is a gap between humanity and God, and in his death and resurrection Christ has filled said gap in order that we may one day go to heaven when we die. If this is the gospel, and eschatology is the study of the last things, there is no need for eschatology to be mentioned in our understanding of the Gospel, because the two can coincide separately without ever needing to interact. However, this understanding of either the Gospel or eschatology will simply not do for Moltmann. 

In Moltmann's understanding, history must be viewed through the lens of the crucified and risen Christ; any attempt to understand Christianity without this lens is simply not Christianity. Because of this belief, Moltmann takes very seriously what the death and resurrection of Christ is purposed for. In the resurrection, Moltmann argues, God is reconciling humanity to himself, in order to bring forth his Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. Therefore, when we come to Christ, either for the first time or the hundredth time, we need to understand him as the Christ who comes to reconcile, in order that we may one day all be reconciled (cf. Rev 21.3-4). In our Christian faith, we are to live into this hope, that we may not passively hope that Christ one day will come and set all things right, but rather that we are engaging with those around us, bringing the life of Christ to the poor, oppressed, and disadvantaged by society. It is because we can hope in the Christ to come that we can live out the Christ who came and do his work here on earth.

Hope is a powerful thing. It is a dangerous thing. Without hope in a future that would accept African-Americans as equals in society, Martin Luther King Jr. would never have gave his "I Have a Dream" speech. Without hope that she would be able to better the lives of the poor in Calcutta, Mother Teresa would never have devoted her life to serving those most in need of her care. Hope never accepts the status quo. Hope always envisions something better, something that can positively impact the lives of those around us. And that is precisely what the Christian Gospel is. It is the euangellion, the Good News!, that whatever situation we find ourselves in, whether we have lost our jobs, are battling mental illness, suffering from cancer, mourning the loss of a loved one, that life is not defined by the situation we currently find ourselves in. Rather, life is defined by the resurrection of the living Christ, who one day will come to reconcile us all to himself.

This is why eschatology is central to the Gospel. Without eschatology, we cannot understand God's promise to Israel, the branch which Christians are grafted into. Without eschatology we have no hope, and if we have no hope, what really do we have?