1. SEARCHING FOR THE TRINITY: A SUMMARY AND CRITIQUE OF JÜRGEN
MOLTMANN’S THEOLOGICAL METHOD AND THEOLOGY OF GOD
________________
A Paper
Presented to
Dr. Todd Miles
Western Seminary, Portland
________________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Course
THS 660, 20th
Century Theology
________________
By
G. Philip Arnold, Jr.
December 9, 2016

2. 1
SEARCHING FOR THE TRINITY: A SUMMARY AND CRITIQUE OF JÜRGEN
MOLTMANN’S THEOLOGICAL METHOD AND DOCTRINE OF GOD
Introduction
Despite the controversies which have swirled around his revisionist proposals of key
Christian doctrines, Jürgen Moltmann (1926- ) is indisputably one of the most influential
theologians of the latter half of the 20th
century. His innovative theological projects have
influenced Latin American liberation theology, North American black theology, Korean Minjung
theology, feminist liberation theology, and environmental/ecological theology.1
One of the most
important contributions Moltmann has made to 20th
century theology is his careful examination
of the Trinity. However, his proclivity toward working independently of traditional creeds and
confessions leads Moltmann to a radical departure from both traditional theism and process
theology.
In this paper, I first provide a brief biographical sketch of Jürgen Moltmann which
focuses on the formative events of his early life and the philosophical influences of his
education. After this biographical section, I explore Moltmann’s theological method, giving
special attention to how his commitment to creating a distinctly eschatological theology
influences his views of God’s revelation and his use of Scripture. The next section provides a
summary of Moltmann’s Doctrine of God. This section focuses on his proposal of dynamic
relationality or perichoresis, his identification of the immanent Trinity with the economic
Trinity, his view of divine passibility, and his conception of God in terms of panentheism. The
paper’s final section then provides a critique of Moltmann’s views, drawing special attention to
1
Sung Wook Chung, “Preface,” in Jürgen Moltmann and Evangelical Theology: A Critical
Engagement, ed. Sung Wook Chung (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2012), xvii.

3. 2
the strengths and ongoing relevance of his work and the reasons why the most controversial
aspects of his theology remain unconvincing.
Part 1: A Brief Biographical Sketch
It is, of course, impossible to do theology in a vacuum. Jürgen Moltmann is an especially
poignant example of how one’s theology is shaped by personal experience. Born on April 8,
1926 in Hamburg, Germany, Moltmann grew up in a politically liberal, socialist-minded
household he describes as being “joyous, and intentionally void of religious belief and practice.”2
In this environment, Moltmann grew up idolizing Max Planck, Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, and
Louis de Broglie and wanted to study physics and mathematics.3
But these educational plans were interrupted when Moltmann was drafted into the
German air force in February 1943. He was stationed at an anti-aircraft battery on Alster Lake
outside of Hamburg and wounded near the end of “Operation Gomorrah,” a relentless nine-day
bombing of his home city. It was while floating in the lake, wondering why he was still alive
when so many of his friends had been killed, that Moltmann remembers “during that night I cried
out to God for the first time in my life and put my life in his hands…During that night I became
a seeker after God.”4
After “Operation Gomorrah,” Moltmann was assigned to a heavy weapons
company of an infantry battalion on the Western Front. On February 15, 1945, an Allied patrol
discovered him wandering alone between enemy positions and he surrendered.5
2
Jürgen Moltmann, A Broad Place: An Autobiography (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 5.
3
Jürgen Moltmann, “Lived Theology: An Intellectual Biography,” The Asbury Theological
Journal 55, no. 1 (Spring 2000): 9.
4
Moltmann, A Broad Place, 17.
5
Paul Parker, “An Evangelical Assessment of Jürgen Moltmann’s Ethics” in Jurgen Moltmann
and Evangelical Theology: A Critical Engagement, ed. Sung Wook Chung (Eugene: Pickwick
Publications, 2012), 235.

4. 3
In August of 1945, Moltmann was transferred to a Scottish prisoner of war camp. During
his time at this camp, he and his fellow prisoners received genuine kindness and hospitality from
local Scottish families and workers. More importantly, he received a Bible from one of the
camp’s chaplains and began reading the Psalms. Moltmann writes in his autobiography, “I am
certain that then in 1945, and there, in the Scottish prisoner of war camp, in the dark pit of my
soul, Jesus sought me and found me.”6
Two years later, in the summer of 1947, Moltmann
received an invitation to an international student Christian movement conference where he once
again marveled at the undeserved and unanticipated acceptance from those who should have
considered him their enemy. It was during this time as a prisoner of war that Moltmann
experienced “God as the power of hope” and “God’s presence in suffering”: two themes which
lie at the heart and core of his theological work.7
Upon his release from the prisoner of war camps, Moltmann immediately took up the
study of theology at Göttingen under teachers strongly influenced by Karl Barth’s dialectical
theology. However, other scholars helped set the stage for Moltmann’s work. Moltmann’s
eschatological perspective of the church’s universal mission which culminates in God’s
Kingdom of Glory comes from the influence of Otto Weber, A. A. van Ruler, and J. C.
Hoekendijk. From his study of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Ernst Wolf he developed an interest in
the church’s role in the development of social ethics. Through the influence of Hans Joachim
Iwand, Moltmann applied a Hegelian dialectic to his understanding of Christ’s cross and
resurrection. Finally, Gerhard von Rad and Ernst Käsemann grounded Moltmann’s early work
in the context of biblical theology.8
6
Jürgen Moltmann, A Broad Place, 30.
7
Richard Bauckham, The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann (New York: T&T Clark, 1995), 1.
8
Ibid, 2.

5. 4
Perhaps the clearest influence on Moltmann, however, is that of the secular Marxist
philosopher Ernst Bloch. In fact, Francis Schüssler Fiorenza suggests that Moltmann’s seminal
work Theology of Hope is “a Christian theological parallel to Bloch’s revisionist philosophy of
hope.”9
Bloch proposes that time is being driven forward by a fundamental human instinct
toward a future utopia, a concept he describes as “transcending without transcendence.” Most
significantly, Bloch argues for an ontology which views a utopian future (the “not-yet-being,” a
time when individuals prevail over social alienation) that exercises an influence on the present,
in such a way that the future “precedes” the present.10
In Theology of Hope, Moltmann follows
Bloch in making eschatology the interpretive lens of his system, but simultaneously critiquing
the religious reductionism inherent in Bloch’s Marxist atheism.11
After receiving his doctorate degree in 1952, Moltmann served as pastor of a small
Reformed congregation in Bremen-Wasserhorst. After briefly teaching theology at an academy
in Wuppertal, he joined the theological faculty of Bonn University in 1963. Four years late he
was appointed Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of Tübingen, a post he would
hold until his retirement in 1994. Throughout his career, Moltmann intentionally opened his
work to non-Protestant (and even non-Christian) thought and has been actively involved in
9
Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, “Political Theology and Latin American Liberation Theologies” in
Modern Christian Thought: The Twentieth Century, ed. James C. Livingston and Francis
Schüssler Fiorenza (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 283.
10
Marcel Nuesch, The Sources of Modern Atheism: One Hundred Years of Debate over God,
trans. Matthew J. O’Connell (New York: Paulist Press, 1982), 189.
11
Jürgen Moltmann, “Hope without Faith: An Eschatological Humanism Without God,” trans.
John Cummings in Is God Dead? Concilium, ed. Johannes Metz, 16 vols. (New York: Paulist
Press, 1966), 16:37-40.

6. 5
ecumenical discussions with Marxists, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodoxy, Pentecostals, the
liberationists theologies of Latin America, and feminist theologies.12
Part 2: Moltmann’s Theological Method & the Doctrines of Revelation and Scripture
One of the most fascinating (and frustrating) aspects of Moltmann’s theology is his
intentional repudiation of a predetermined theological method. Refusing to refer to his works as
“dogmatics,” Moltmann instead chooses the phrase “contributions to theology,” a description
“intended to avoid the seductions of the theological system and the coercion of the dogmatic
thesis.”13
Rather than developing a comprehensive, coherent, systematic approach to the
theological project, Moltmann focuses on praxis and doxology. In short, Moltmann’s method
seeks not to interpret the world through a comprehensive and coherent theological system, but to
change the world by advancing a practical theology which emphasizes the need for societal
change.14
Near the end of his academic career, Moltmann describes the general character of his
theological method this way:
If I were to sum up the outline of my theology in a few key phrases, I would have at the
least to say that I am attempting to reflect a theology which has:
- A biblical foundation,
- An eschatological orientation,
- A political responsibility.15
12
In 1952, the year he received his doctorate, Moltmann married Elisabeth Wendel, one of the
pioneers of feminist theology in Germany. In his autobiography, Moltmann writes of his wife, “I
have learnt to introduce theological questions and perceptions into the context of the life in
which I myself am living together with others. For this path ‘out of ideas into life’ I have to
thank Elisabeth and her feminist theology” (A Broad Place, 331).
13
Jürgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1993), xii.
14
Bauckham, The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann, 5-6.
15
Jürgen Moltmann, History and the Triune God: Contributions to Trinitarian Theology, trans.
John Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1991), 182.

7. 6
The first phrase Moltmann uses to describe his theological method is that it has a
“biblical foundation.” But Moltmann’s doctrines of God’s revelation (in general) and of
Scripture (in particular) deviate significantly from traditional Christian approaches. Moltmann
characterizes the traditional Christian view (which approaches God’s revelation with divine self-
disclosure and self-manifestation) as a “much lamented formalism of revelation theology.”16
Instead, Moltmann highlights the concept of God’s promises and their fulfillment. In other
words, Moltmann’s doctrine of revelation does not seek to answer the question, “What is God
like?” as much as the question, “What has God done?” This approach to the doctrine of
revelation serves Moltmann’s eschatological emphasis. He contends:
But if promise is determinative of what is said of the revealing of God, then every
theological view of biblical revelation contains implicitly a governing view of
eschatology…The Christian doctrine of the revelation of God must be eschatologically
understood, namely, in the field of the promise and expectation of the future of the
church.17
Unsurprisingly, Moltmann’s approach to Scripture also deviates from that of traditional
Christian theology. Although Moltmann seems to grant that the Bible plays some authoritative
role in theological reflection and discussion, his view falls far short of the Reformation ideal of
sola Scriptura. Instead, Moltmann sees Scripture only as the starting point for theology:
But in my dealings with what the biblical writings say I have also noticed how critical
and free I have become towards them. Of course I want to know what they intend to say,
but I do not feel bound to take only what they say, and repeat it, and interpret it. I can
quite well conceive that it is possible to say what they say in a different way. In other
words, I take Scripture as a stimulus to my own theological thinking, not as an
authoritative blueprint and confining boundary.18
16
Jürgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian
Eschatology, trans. James W. Leitch (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1967), 42.
17
Ibid., 43.
18
Jürgen Moltmann, Experiences in Theology: Ways and Forms of Christian Theology, trans.
Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), xxii.

8. 7
In a move that Sung Wook Chung suggests is reminiscent of establishing “a canon within
the canon,” Moltmann suggests that there is a difference between “the matter of Scripture” and
text of the Bible.19
Those passages which, in Moltmann’s view, speak directly to “the matter of
Scripture” carry more authoritative weight than those whose connection is more remote. The
underlying question in defining Moltmann’s doctrine of Scripture becomes, “Which sections of
the Bible reflect the true ‘matter of Scripture’?” Moltmann answers:
“The matter of Scripture” in the Tenach/Old Testament is God’s covenant with Israel and
the divine promises given in that covenant, promises which point beyond Israel to the
salvation of all peoples and the peace of the whole creation…In the New Testament ‘the
matter of Scripture” is the unconditional endorsement and universal enactment of God’s
promises through and in Christ, and the beginning of their fulfillment in the experiences
of God’s Spirit. The Christian Scriptures are “holy” inasmuch as they correspond to
God’s promise in Christ and in the Spirit; they are “hallowed” or sanctified by their
function for the proclamation of the gospel to the nations, and for the new life in the
Spirit. They are writings on which the church is founded, and life-renewing texts of the
promise.20
The second important distinctive of Moltmann’s theological method is that it reflects
“political responsibility.” By this, Moltmann expresses his conviction that theology should
address the oppression and injustice of the contemporary world. Roger E. Olson suggests that
“concern for meeting the questions of the present with answers drawn from God’s revelation of
the future lies at the center of Moltmann’s theological method.”21
One application of this
distinctive is the distinctly ecumenical emphasis of his theology. Moltmann stresses the
“provisionality of all theological work and the ability of the theologian only to contribute to the
19
Sung Wook Chung, “Moltmann on Scripture and Revelation,” in Jürgen Moltmann and
Evangelical Theology: A Critical Engagement, ed. Sung Wook Chung (Eugene: Pickwick
Publications, 2012), 28.
20
Moltmann, Experiences in Theology, 135-136.
21
Roger E. Olson, The Journey of Modern Theology: From Reconstruction to Deconstruction
(Grand Rapids: IVP Academic, 2013), 460.

9. 8
continuing discussion with an ecumenical community of theologians.”22
Significantly, this
openness to dialogue extends beyond theological boundaries to include other academic
disciplines. Although he maintains theology’s “prophetic” role in moving the world toward the
utopian, eschatological future, his commitment to the concept of relationality opens the door to
have secular (and even atheist) philosophy make a meaningful contribution to Christian
theology.23
There is one final important aspect of Moltmann’s theological method which consistently
dominates his work: a focus on the cross of Christ. In other words, Moltmann is especially
interested in creating a Messianic theology. The cross of Jesus becomes the central interpretive
lens through which all other doctrines are viewed. In particular, the centrality of Jesus’ cross to
Moltmann’s doctrine of God helps explain many of the seemingly radical aspects of his
proposals. It is because of this “cross-focus” that Moltmann is often considered to be the 20th
century’s “theologian of the cross.”
Part 3: Moltmann’s Doctrine of God – A Trinitarian Theology
One of the most important theological developments of the latter half of the twentieth-
century was the renewal of interest in the doctrine of the Trinity. Within this renewal of
Trinitarian theology, Jürgen Moltmann stands as one of the most significant contributors. In
fact, Bauckham suggests that “Moltmann’s has been one of the boldest and fullest explorations”
of the doctrine of God.24
In this section, I explore four important aspects of Moltmann’s
approach to the Trinity: his understanding of dynamic relationality within the persons of the
22
Bauckham, The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann, 7.
23
This principle of relationality – which will form an important part of Moltmann’s conception
of the Trinity – becomes especially prevalent in The Church and the Power of the Spirit: A
Contribution to Messianic Ecclesiology, trans. Margaret Kohl (London: SCM Press, 1977).
24
Bauckham, The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann, 27.

10. 9
Trinity (also called perichoresis), identification of the immanent Trinity with the economic
Trinity, his argument for divine passibility, and his conception of God in terms of panentheism.
The first innovation in Moltmann’s exposition of the Trinity is his view of how the three
persons of the Trinity relate to one another. Moltmann refuses to locate the unity of God in one
absolute subject. Instead, his approach to the issue is “to start from the biblical history, and
therefore to make the unity of the three divine Persons the problem, rather than to take the
reverse method – to start from the philosophical postulate of absolute unity, in order then to find
the problem in the biblical testimony.”25
The solution, then, to the “problem” of divine unity lies
in the perichoretic unity of the three divine persons: “The concept of God’s unity cannot in the
Trinitarian sense be fitted into the homogeneity of the one divine substance, or into the identity
of the absolute subject either; and least of all into one of the three Persons of the Trinity. It must
be perceived as a perichoresis of the divine Persons.”26
Moltmann is convinced that this patristic
concept of perichoresis is necessary, saying, “If the unity of God is not perceived in the at-
oneness of the triune God, and therefore as perichoretic unity, then Arianism and Sabellianism
remain inescapable threats to Christian theology.”27
For Moltmann, then, the notion of perichoresis is virtually synonymous with
“community,” the interpretive lens through which he approaches the Trinity. While this view
emphasizes the separateness of each of the divine persons, acknowledging that each person is
distinguished by will, emotion, and self-consciousness,28
it simultaneously stresses their unity in
25
Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom, 149.
26
Ibid., 150.
27
Ibid., 150.
28
He writes, “Biblically, Father, Son, and Spirit are in fact subjects with a will and
understanding, who speak with one another, turn to one another in love, and together are
‘one’…So the concept of God may not do away with the subjective differences between the
persons, because otherwise it would do away with the history that takes place between the

11. 10
terms of a mutual indwelling or inter-penetration of the three persons. This perichoretic
relationship is not merely a metaphysical understanding of the unity of the divine persons, but is
dynamic so that each person dwells in one another to the extent that they are completely one. He
explains: “The Father exists in the Son, the Son in the Father, and both of them in the Spirit, just
as the Spirit exists in both the Father and the Son. By virtue of their eternal love they live in one
another to such an extent, and dwell in one another to such an extent, that they are one.”29
Since
Moltmann seems to recognize that his view of the Trinity may sound like tritheism or modalism,
his discussion of the relationship of the divine persons ends with assertion that “the doctrine of
perichoresis links together in a brilliant way the threeness and the unity, without reducing the
unity threeness to unity, or dissolving the unity in the threeness.”
Therefore, for Moltmann, the unity of the triune God does not consist in a single divine
“essence” (as has been traditionally understood since Nicaea). He sees this as an unnecessary
philosophical addition to the biblical data. Instead, it is the union and fellowship of the three
divine persons exhibited in the history of trinitarian communal relationships which constitute this
divine unity. Moltmann’s conviction that the relationship between the persons of the Trinity is
best expressed through perichoresis is summarized when he writes:
The at-oneness of the three divine Persons is neither presupposed by these Persons as
their single substance nor is it brought about as the sameness or identity of the divine
lordship or self-communication. The unitedness, the at-oneness, of the triunity is already
given with the fellowship of the Father, the Son and the Spirit. It therefore does not need
to be additionally secured by a particular doctrine about the unity of the divine substance,
or by the special doctrine of the one divine lordship.”30
Father, the Son, and the Spirit for the salvation of the world.” Moltmann, History and the Triune
God, 84-85.
29
Jürgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom, 150.
30
Ibid., 150.

12. 11
As is always the case for Moltmann, the emphasis on perichoresis in the Trinity has
practical application. He argues that the trinitarian “community” – characterized by mutual
indwelling or inter-penetration – sets the pattern for human relationships. The church’s goal is
not just to reflect the imago Dei, but more specifically, the imago Trinitatis. The famous
expression of this conviction is the axiom frequently attributed to Moltmann: “The Trinity is our
social program.” Moltmann’s disdain for a metaphysical conception of the Trinity which focuses
on the monarchical flows from the way such a depiction of God “generally provides the
justification for earthly domination – religious, moral, patriarchial, or political.”31
Therefore,
while Moltmann presents his argument advocating perichoresis as the controlling feature for
understanding the internal relationships within the Trinity so as to attempt to “rescue” the
doctrine of God from philosophical speculation, there may be reason to suspect his proposal is
equally motivated by the socio-political concerns which drive so much of his theology.
The second controversial aspect of Moltmann’s doctrine of God is his identification of
the immanent Trinity with the economic Trinity. Classical Christian theism distinguishes
between the immanent and economic Trinity, using the former term to describe God as he is in
himself and the latter term to describe God as he works human salvation. But several twentieth
century theologians have questioned the legitimacy of this distinction.32
Moltmann belongs to
this group, arguing that this distinction is a philosophical abstraction which threatens humanity’s
ability to know God as he has revealed himself in history.
31
Ibid., 218.
32
The leading theological voices questioning the traditional distinction between the immanent
and economic Trinity are Karl Barth and Karl Rahner. Karl Rahner is famous for (among other
things) the so-called “Rahner Rule” which states that “The ‘economic’ Trinity is the ‘immanent’
Trinity and the ‘immanent’ Trinity is the ‘economic’ Trinity.” Although Moltmann’s own view
of this issue is undoubtedly influenced by both Barth and Rahner, his exposition is his own.

13. 12
In The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, Moltmann develops his doctrine of the immanent
Trinity in two steps. First, echoing the so-called “Rahner Rule,” Moltmann insists that the
economic Trinity should be equated with the immanent Trinity. This identification flows from
Moltmann’s concern to address the soteriological concern that God has truly acted in the cross of
Christ. This concern reflects Moltmann’s commitment to the cross of Jesus as the most
important event for understanding God’s nature. He argues that anything that might be said
about the immanent Trinity apart from God’s saving work in Christ can only be speculation
since the cross is the definitive revelation of God’s nature. He argues that “If the central
foundation of our knowledge of the Trinity is the cross, on which the Father delivered up the Son
for us through the Spirit, then it is impossible to conceive of any Trinity of substance in the
transcendent primal ground of this event, in which cross and self-giving are not present.”33
The second step of Moltmann’s doctrine of the immanent Trinity is to reject completely
the terminology of “immanent” and “economic,” replacing them with his own terms: “Trinity in
origin” and “Trinity in sending.” He writes:
As God appears in history as the sending Father and the sent Son, so he must earlier have
been in himself. The relation of the one who sends to the one sent as it appears in the
history of Jesus thus includes in itself an order of origin within the Trinity, and must be
understood as that order’s historical correspondence. Otherwise there would be no
certainty that in the messianic message of Jesus we have to do with God himself.34
In replacing the traditional “immanent/economic” language of the discussion with
“Trinity in sending” and “Trinity in origin,” Moltmann hopes to “rescue” God’s plan of salvation
from the charge of being a capricious decision to create and redeem the world.35
In essence,
33
Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom, 160.
34
Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, 54.
35
John J. O’Donnell, Trinity and Temporality: The Christian Doctrine of God in the Light of
Process Theology and the Theology of Hope (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 126.

14. 13
Moltmann is trying to protect the doctrine of the Trinity from a Hegelian subjectivism which
views God as the ultimate and absolute “Subject.” Such a view threatens to create a God of
abstraction, divorced from his actions in redemptive history. This introduction of innovative
terminology is aimed at replacing approaches which conceive of God as “a closed circle – the
symbol of perfection and self-sufficiency” with a “doctrine of the Trinity which is bound to the
history of Christ and the history of the Spirit…the God who is open to man, open to the world
and open to time.”36
It is also worth noting that, while Moltmann is following a theological path blazed first
by Barth and Rahner, his view of the Trinity differs from theirs in significant ways. He criticizes
Barth’s desire to replace the ancient formulation una substantia – tres personae with the
expression “one subject-three modes of being” for introducing a subtle form of modalism. He
says of Barth’s proposal, “The result would be to transfer the subjectivity of action to a deity
concealed “behind” the three persons. And the consequences of this would be monotheism only
fortuitously connected with Christianity in any way, a general transcendentality and a vague
human religiosity which would simply swallow up the particular identity of the Christian
faith.”37
He criticizes Rahner’s proposal for much the same reason:
It becomes clear that Rahner transforms the classical doctrine of the Trinity into the
reflection trinity of the absolute subject; and the way he does this is plain too. The “self-
communication” of the Absolute has that differentiated structure which seems so similar
to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. But in fact it makes the doctrine of the Trinity
superfluous. The fact that God gives us himself in absolute self-communication can be
associated with Father, Son and Spirit but it does not have to be. On the other hand what
is stated biblically with the history of the Father, the Son and the Spirit is only vaguely
paraphrased by the concept of God’s self-communication.38
36
Ibid, 55.
37
Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, 139.
38
Ibid., 147.

15. 14
In contrast to Barth and Rahner, Moltmann’s view insists on taking seriously the
uniqueness and individuality of the persons within the Trinity. He argues that it is inappropriate
to start with a general concept of “personhood” and apply it indiscriminately to all three persons
of the Trinity in the same way. Instead, the distinct, unique way each of the persons relates to
the others must be accounted for. His own view is summarized well in the following words:
We have to conclude that no summing up, generic terms must be used at all in the
doctrine of the Trinity. For in the life of the immanent Trinity everything is unique. It is
only because everything in God’s nature is unique that in the ways and works of God it
can be recognized as the origin of other things. In considering the doctrine of the
immanent Trinity, we can really only tell, relate, but not sum up. We have to remain
concrete, for history shows us that it is in the abstractions that the heresies are hidden.39
The third controversial aspect of Moltmann’s doctrine of God is his argument in favor of
divine passibility. Influenced by the proposal of Bonhoeffer, Moltmann rejects the classical
concept of apatheia as a metaphysical and ethical creation of theology. This rejection of the
traditional concept of God’s impassibility flows from Moltmann’s focus on Christ’s cross as the
primary source of God’s revelation. He asks, “How can Christian faith understand Christ’s
passion as being the revelation of God, if the deity cannot suffer?”40
In calling for a “revolution
in the concept of God,” Moltmann argues that traditional systems of explaining Christ’s person
in terms of two natures belongs less to the biblical data than to the worldview of Greek
philosophy. Rather than creating a doctrine of God which assumes the impassibility of the
divine nature, he contends that:
Within the Christian message of the cross of Christ, something new and strange has
entered the metaphysical world. For this faith must understand the deity of God from the
event of the suffering and death of the Son of God and thus bring about a fundamental
39
Ibid., 190.
40
Ibid., 21.

16. 15
change in the orders of being of metaphysical though and the value tales of religious
feeling.41
For Moltmann, then, insisting on divine impassibility leads only to the paradoxical truism of God
suffering impassibly.42
In place of the traditional view of God’s impassibility, Moltmann focuses on God’s
identification with and suffering for the world as an expression of his unconditional love.
Moltmann’s concept of divine love requires the ability of God to be vulnerable to suffering. He
argues that “A God who cannot suffer is poorer than any man. For a God who is incapable of
suffering is a being who cannot be involved. Suffering and injustice do not affect him…But the
one who cannot suffer cannot love either. So [such a God] is also a loveless being.”43
In his
consideration of Moltmann’s view of divine love, Bauckham suggests that this argument about
divine love is “valid only in strict relation to the cross.”44
This reminder illustrates the centrality
of the cross for Moltmann’s theological project.
But Moltmann’s doctrine of divine passibility goes one step further by suggesting that
suffering is something that happens within the Trinity. In other words, suffering is not
something limited to the incarnate Christ as the result of his atoning work in the world, it is
something experienced by both Father and Son as a part of their identification with the world.
Moltmann suggests that Christ’s cross ought to be viewed as “the creative love proceeding out of
the Father’s pain and the Son’s self-surrender and coming to forsaken human beings in order to
open to them a future for life.”45
Once again, such a statement reflects how Moltmann’s
41
Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God: The Cross as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian
Theology, trans. R. A. Wilson and J. Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1974), 215.
42
Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, 22.
43
Ibid., 222.
44
Bauckham, The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann, 50.
45
Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, 294-295.

17. 16
theological positions are influenced by his socio-political agenda. One of the driving forces
behind his defense of divine passibility is the desire to identify God with the world’s oppressed.
The final controversial aspect of Moltmann’s theology of God brings together the three
discussed above. In light of a perichoretic relationship between the persons of the Trinity, the
equation of the immanent Trinity with the economic Trinity, and the possibility of divine
passibility, Moltmann proposes panentheism as the best description of God’s nature. This
proposal flows from Moltmann’s rejection of classical theism, deism, pantheism, atheism, and
process panentheism as viable descriptions of God’s nature. In a summary of Moltmann’s
critique of these various approaches to the doctrine of God, Roger E. Olson suggests that
“Moltmann’s whole theological career was spent attempting to create a new concept of God that
would do greater justice to God’s essence as love in light of the horrors of history.”46
The fruit
of this career-long project is what Moltmann called “Christian panentheism.”
Moltmann’s Christian panentheism starts with the assumption that “the relationship
between God and the world has a reciprocal character.”47
Once again rejecting the Augustinian
distinction between opera trinitatis ad extra and opera trinitatis ad intra, Moltmann argues that
God’s actions in and toward the world affect God’s essence within the Trinity: “Outward acts
correspond to inward suffering, and outward suffering corresponds to inward acts. This means
that God’s outward and inward aspects are intertwined in a totally different way from the picture
suggested by the spatial metaphors, outward/inward.”48
In other words, divine suffering in the
cross is not merely something external to God, but affects his very nature. Although the term
panentheistic would not appear until later works, this concept is evident as early as The Crucified
46
Roger E. Olson, The Journey of Modern Theology, 468-469.
47
Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, 98.
48
Ibid., 98-99.

18. 17
God: “This means that God’s being is historical and that he exists in history. The ‘story of God’
then is the story of the history of man.”49
Moltmann was not unique in proposing a panentheistic approach to the doctrine of God.
Process theologians like Clark Pinnock, Alfred North Whitehead, and John B. Cobb had used
such language in their own theological proposals. But Moltmann’s panentheism differs from
process theology in significant ways. Moltmann rejects the idea of the a “development” within
God, insisting that God’s experiences of suffering in history are the result of his free choice
rather than because he is inherently dependent on the world. Moltmann’s panentheism
transcends process theology’s view that God’s suffering allows him to understand human
suffering by suggesting that God intentionally chooses to suffer in order to help a world subject
to suffering. But most importantly, Moltmann’s eschatological focus keeps God’s transcendence
in the foreground as he works to bring about the Kingdom of Glory which brings to culmination
both human and divine history.50
Part 4: An Appreciation and Critique of Moltmann’s Theological Project
There is no denying that Jürgen Moltmann is one of the most influential cotemporary
theologians. Even a brief survey of his works reveals much worth appreciating. First, Moltmann
should be commended for his sincere desire to engage contemporary culture and explore how the
truths of the Christian faith apply to the socio-economic inequalities of modern life. In an age
when the church has been tempted to withdraw from engagement with opposing perspectives,
Moltmann’s openness to dialoguing with a host of different philosophical, political, and
theological perspectives reflects a heart that is interested in the well-being of others. Even if
49
Moltmann, The Crucified God, 35.
50
Roger E. Olson, The Journey of Modern Theology, 467.

19. 18
more traditionally-minded Christians are uncomfortable with the influence non-Christian
agendas have had on Moltmann’s theological perspective, his willingness to reach “across the
aisle” is worthy of emulation.
Regarding Moltmann’s theological method, two emphases emerge for which all
Christians can give thanks. The first is Moltmann’s commitment to keeping the Christological
message of Jesus’ atoning death and resurrection at the center of the theological project.
Moltmann is absolutely correct in criticizing how often traditional Christian dogmatics devolves
into an anthropocentric view. By adopting a Christocentric approach to theology, Moltmann
imitates the apostle Paul’s conviction to “know nothing…except Jesus Christ and him
crucified.”51
The second emphasis worth appreciating is Moltmann’s desire to rescue
eschatology from the fringes of Systematic Theology and integrate it into every aspect of
theology. Moltmann’s eschatological emphasis serves as a powerful reminder that Christians are
to be a prophetic voice in a fallen world. While the church’s primary focus must remain on a
faithful proclamation of the gospel, she cannot ignore the injustice and oppression which so
frequently characterizes life in a fallen world.
In Moltmann’s doctrine of God, Christians of all denominations can appreciate a desire to
draw our understanding of the Trinity from the language of the biblical text rather than the highly
philosophical categories which have tended to dominate theological dialogue. Similarly,
Moltmann is to be commended for wrestling with the unintended consequences of other
approaches to theology proper.52
Even if conservative Christians find Moltmann’s Christian
panentheism lacking, his willingness to tackle the deficiencies of other views is noteworthy.
51
1 Corinthians 2:2
52
“It is important to know and absorb the fact that, for Moltmann, none of the traditional
concepts [of the doctrine of God] will work…Classical theism separates God too far from

20. 19
But despite the strengths of Moltmann’s body of work, there are a host of issues which
raise significant problems for evangelical Christians. First, it should be noted that Moltmann’s
disregard for a comprehensive and coherent theological system means his theology is “riddled
with tensions if not contradictions.”53
Moltmann wants to appropriate a diverse number of
theological worlds: the divine passibility of process theology, Luther’s theology of the cross,
Hegel’s dynamic panentheism, classical trinitarian theism. But there are strong reasons to doubt
that he ever successfully integrates these theological concepts into a united whole.54
Some have found Moltmann’s appropriation of Bloch’s eschatological focus regarding
the progress of society toward a utopian existence in this world closer to Neo-Platonic
philosophy than biblical theology. Fiorenza criticizes Moltmann for presenting “God’s Kingdom
mainly as a transcendent reality so that it becomes almost a Platonic ideal standing in contrast to
earthly existence.”55
Moltmann’s eschatology may also strike some readers as leaning toward
post-millennialism in its insistence that the church’s social activity is responsible for bringing
God’s Kingdom of Glory into existence.
suffering to make sense of God in view of the horrors of the twentieth century such as the
Holocaust. Deism also separates God too far from the world and leaves God in a transcendent
sphere where he does not do anything except judge. Pantheism depersonalizes God and
identifies God with the world, which intensifies the problem of evil. Process panentheism leaves
God weak and unable to help. Atheism divests reality of meaning. Moltmann’s whole
theological career was spent attempting to create a new concept of God that would do greater
justice to God’s essence as love in light of the horrors of history.” Roger E. Olson, The Journey
of Modern Theology, 468-469
53
Ibid., 473.
54
To be fair, this criticism may be judging Moltmann by a criterion he was never interested in
fulfilling. But even Richard Bauckham, one of the most ardent defenders of Moltmann,
concedes that “it is true that [Moltmann’s theological style] sometimes obscures conceptual
problems in his work which could otherwise come to light and be overcome more quickly.”
Bauckham, The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann, 25. For a small sample of such “conceptual
problems,” cf. Roger E. Olson, The Journey of Modern Theology, 473.
55
Fiorenza, “Political and Latin American Liberation Theology,” 287.

21. 20
Similarly, Moltmann’s approach to revelation and Scripture fall short of what an
evangelical Christian with a high view of Scripture can accept. While Moltmann is to be
commended for his desire to wrestle with the biblical text and his focus on God’s revelation in
history, he fails to appreciate the unique place of the Bible as the only authoritative divine
interpretation of that history. God certainly does reveal himself in his works; but the meaning
and interpretation of those works belong to the Word. Molmann’s doctrine of revelation and
Scripture open the door to unacceptable level of subjectivism and speculation.
There are several criticisms of Moltmann’s doctrine of God worth noting. One of the
driving forces behind Moltmann’s redefinition of Trinity terminology is dissatisfaction with the
vocabulary codified by the discussions of previous centuries.56
But a complete rejection of that
terminology is an unnecessarily extreme measure.57
Moltmann’s argument, while rightly
revealing the inconsistencies sometimes present in the Fathers’ discussions of the incarnation,
fails to wrestle with the logical “offense” of divinity and humanity united in one person. In other
words, a clear and nuanced expression of Chalcedonian Christology is fully capable of
accounting for the unique circumstances of the incarnation which lead to the impassible God
suffering death.
Similar objections are raised regarding whether Moltmann’s insistence on a perichoretic
relationship between the three persons of the Trinity ultimately fails to account for the true unity
of the persons. Some critics argue that Moltmann inadvertently falls into a form of tritheism.58
56
As noted above, Moltmann was particularly opposed to the “two natures” language adopted at
Chalcedon to explain how an impassible God was able to suffer an atoning death.
57
Bauckham agrees: “…the problem raised by patristic Christology cannot be solved simply by
rejecting their definition of divine nature, as Moltmann does.” Bauckham, The Theology of
Jürgen Moltmann, 63.
58
Bauckham dismisses this charge insisting that it is “a charge which careful reading of his later
trinitarian work fails to support.” Bauckham, The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann, 25.

22. 21
One final charge often leveled against Moltmann is that his concept of Christian panentheism,
including his rejection of God’s asity and impassibility, compromise the sovereignty of God and
falls into the mistake of making world history the process by which God realizes himself. In
other words, the unintended consequence of Moltmann’s view is that God is “dissolved” into
human history. As is the case with Moltmann’s rejection of Chalcedonian Christology, those
wrestling with Moltmann’s panentheism might legitimately wonder whether his rejection of
classical theism is premature. Instead of rejecting it outright in favor of a position which seems
to put God at the mercy of his creation, it would seem that a nuanced treatment of classical
theism would more consistently address the concerns of theodicy Moltmann seeks to address.
Conclusion
It is no exaggeration to suggest that Jürgen Moltmann is the most significant living
European theologian. The influence of his work on other twentieth and twenty-first century
theologies, his ecumenical dialogue with an array of different philosophical and theological
perspectives, and his commitment to socio-political equality have made an indelible mark on
Christian theology. Of his many contributions to modern theology, Moltmann’s eschatological
and trinitarian approach to the doctrine of God remains one of his greatest. Even though
conservative Christians may have grave concerns about his methodology and conclusions, an
understanding and appreciation of Moltmann’s contribution will challenge and sharpen our
theological thinking and spur us on to engagement with other Christian voices.

23. 22
Bibliography
Bauckham, Richard. The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann. New York: T&T Clark, 1995.
Chung, Sung Wook. “Moltmann on Scripture and Revelation.” In Jürgen Moltmann and
Evangelical Theology: A Critical Engagement, edited by Sung Wook Chung, 1-16.
Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2012.
Fiorenza, Francis Schüssler. “Political Theology and Latin American Liberation Theologies.” In
Modern Christian Thought: The Twentieth Century, edited by James C. Livingston and
Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, 273-308. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000.
Livingston, James C., Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, Sarah Coakley, and James H. Evans Jr.
Modern Christian Thought: Volume 2 - The Twentieth Century. Second ed. Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2000.
Moltmann, Jürgen. A Broad Place: An Autobiography. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007.
———. The Crucified God: The Cross as the Foundation and Criticism of Chrisian Theology.
Translated by R. A. WIlson and J. Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1974.
———. Experiences in Theology: Ways and Forms of Christian Theology. Translated by
Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000.
———. History and the Triune God: Contributions to Trinitarian Theology. Translated by John
Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1991.
———. “Hope Without Faith: An Eschatological Humanism Without God.” In Is God Dead?
Concilium. Vol. 16, edited by Johannes Metz, translated by John Cummings, 37-40. New
York: Paulist Press, 1966.
———. “Lived Theology: An Intellectual Biography.” The Asbury Theological Journal 55, no. 1
(Spring 2000): 9-13.
———. Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian Eschatology.
Translated by James W. Leitch. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1967.
———. The Trinity and the Kingdom. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress,
1993.
Nuesch, Marcel. The Sources of Modern Atheism: One Hundred Years of Debate Over God.
Translated by Matthew J. O’Connell. New York: Paulist Press, 1982.
O’Donnell, John J. Trinity and Temporality: The Christian Doctrine of God in the Light of
Process Theology and the Theology of Hope. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1983.

24. 23
Olson, Roger E. The Journey of Modern Theology: From Reconstruction to Deconstruction.
Grand Rapids: IVP Academic, 2013.
Parker, Paul. “An Evangelical Assessment of Jürgen Moltmann.” In Jürgen Moltmann and
Evangelical Theology: A Critical Engagement, Sung Wook Chung, 215-36. Eugene, OR:
Pickwick Publications, 2012.