Re: Where are the dear departed? (was Re: [asa] Sin, animals, and salvation)

David -

Briefly, in response to your final question. Moltmann presents the idea of zimzum, or divine withdrawal, as a way of understanding the divine kenosis in creation. But kenosis does not need to be identified with that particular model. (& of course speaking of God creating a "space" within himself is a model, an analogy.) I suspect Moltmann's usage is one thing that's led to the misunderstanding (IMO) that kenosis means divine absence. ["God makes room for his creation by withdrawing his presence," as he says in God in Creation (Harper & Row, 1985), p.87.] But that is not what the word means in Phil.2. God is present in Christ but limits his divine powers there.

Kenosis is suggested already in the fact that God allows something to exist that is not God - i.e., the world is creation, not emanation. (Wright of course agrees with that.) But it also means, IMO, the hiddenness of God & God's actions in bringing the world into being. I.e., as much as possible (please note this qualification) creatio continua extends back to the beginning. I discussed this in Ch.7 of The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross.

As Moltmann noted, the idea of kenosis in the origination of the world was note unique to him but was referred to by Emil Brunner.

Shalom
George
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: Ted Davis ; ASA
  Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 11:09 AM
  Subject: Re: Where are the dear departed? (was Re: [asa] Sin, animals, and salvation)

  Thanks for these observations Ted. I don't read Wright as slamming Moltmann and Pannenberg, but rather as trying to preserve some of their core insights while retaining ontological separation between God and creation.

  In chapter 5 of "Surprised by Hope" (titled "Cosmic Future: Progress or Despair," Wright says in a footnote that "[t]heologians will recognize that i am in implicit dialogue throughout this part of the book with two of the great German theologians of hte last generation: [Pannenberg and Moltmann]." (p. 303 n.1). He further says: "There is an entire book to be written as part of this ongoing conversation, but this is not it" and cites Richard Bauckham's book on Moltmann.

  And then Wright is distinguishinges himself from Moltmann here: "This is part of my answer to jurgen Moltmann's proposal to revive the rabbinic doctrine of zimzum, in which God as it were retreats, creates space within himself, so that there is ontological space for there to be something else other than him. If I am right, it works the other way around. God's relative love, precisely by being love, creates new space for there to be things that are genuinely other than God. . . . One day, when all forces of rebellion have been defeated and the creation responds freely and gladly to the love of its creator, God will fill it with himself so that it will both remain an independent being, other than God, and also be flooded with God's own life." (Surprised by Hope, p. 102).

  How specifically does panentheism relate to Moltmann's theology of the crucified God?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 20 13:39:21 2008