Contemporary Theology II: ST507 From Theology of Hope to ... · From Theology of Hope to Postmodernism This is the second lecture in the course on contemporary theology. In our first

Contemporary Theology II:

Transcript - ST507 Contemporary Theology II: From Theology of Hope to Postmodernism© 2019 Our Daily Bread University. All rights reserved.

1 of 14

LESSON 02 of 24ST507

Theology of Hope: Background

Contemporary Theology II: From Theology of Hope to Postmodernism

This is the second lecture in the course on contemporary theology. In our first lecture we did a review of the first course on contemporary theology and gave a bit of a preview of what we were going to do in this second course.

In this lecture, I want to turn to the first theological movement of this course, and that is the theology of hope. As we noticed at the end of the last course, theologians were pronouncing the death of God. But even as some were pronouncing the death of God, there were others who were already talking about plans for resurrection, if we can put it that way, in light of another way to do theology. And the first of those ways is theology of hope. I want to turn to that in a moment, but before we do, let’s begin with a word of prayer.

Father, we thank you again for the privilege of study. We pray that as we begin in this lecture to reflect upon the theology of hope, that you would help us to understand what these theologians were saying. May we understand why they came to the conclusions that they did. And help us to take from them things that are beneficial in our own thinking. Help us also to see the limitations and the weaknesses of this theology. So bless our time together as we study. For it’s in Christ’s name we pray it, Amen.

I want to begin by giving some overview as to what it is that was going on at the time that theology of hope came on the scene. And incidentally, I should note that this is a theological movement that came on the scene primarily in the 1960s and afterward. It is not one that you hear an awful lot of today, but it did make a sizeable splash at the time it first came on the scene.

What I want to do first of all is talk about the cultural and theological background that precedes this theology and then talk about the philosophical underpinnings of this movement. And then once we have done that, we will begin to take a look at the

John S. Feinberg, PhD University of Chicago, MA and PhD

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, ThMTalbot Theological Seminary, MDiv

University of California, BA

Transcript - ST507 Contemporary Theology II: From Theology of Hope to Postmodernism © 2019 Our Daily Bread University. All rights reserved.


2 of 14

Lesson 02 of 24

specific ideas of theology of hope.

So first of all, let’s talk about what was going on culturally at the time this particular theology appeared on the scene. We noted in the other course that because of the events of World War I and World War II and the Depression economically that was worldwide, there was indeed quite an attitude in the early part of the twentieth century of pessimism. People were not terribly optimistic about the future. However, by the time you get to the 1960s, and here I’m thinking of pre-Vietnam War days, pre-Watergate days, you find that a good bit of that depression of World War I and World War II was gone. The atrocities of that time period were past, and there was a new generation on the scene that either had not lived through those events or was far enough removed from it that it did not have the immediacy to them that it had to people who had lived at that time.

In the second half of the twentieth century then, a new kind of optimism was arising. And, as I said a moment ago, in the United States this is prior to the Vietnam War and all the unrest that that caused in our country. It is prior to the Watergate conspiracy and everything that happened at that point, as well the apparent impending nuclear war and holocaust between the USSR and the USA over Berlin and other European holdings. That sort of holocaust that people were anticipating never occurred, so after a while, the kind of depressive mood that had been present in Europe for quite a while seemed to be lifting. Maybe, to be careful, this is not an age of unbridled optimism as we found at the beginning of the twentieth century, but it was still a period that was much more optimistic than before. I think in some cases what was happening is that people had the attitude that the past, at least the immediate past, had been so bad that the future couldn’t possibly be worse; and as a matter of fact, it looked fairly good from a number of standpoints.

We find at this time that there were various scientific advances that were going on in culture. In particular, one thinks of space exploration and all that grew out of that. As a result of the scientific advances, science was no longer seen so much as it had been as so potentially destructive of mankind. As a matter of fact, as people reflected upon what was happening in science there was a good deal of optimism, hope for a greater future, and that science might actually be able to help us in attaining this. Space exploration especially brought about this optimism, as there was this sense that we were going beyond the borders of our own planet and that



3 of 14

Lesson 02 of 24

the information that we were getting through space exploration was not only very interesting, but also it was going to be helpful in understanding our world and managing things here.

In addition at this particular time, Third-World nations were beginning to be on the rise. And as they began to rise, they wanted their share of the goods. And a number of these Third-World countries saw in Marxist philosophy a possible answer as to how they could begin to get their share of the pie. But of course there was a real impatience on the part of many of these Third-World countries to get on with this process to bring them their share of economic prosperity.

As you look back at the 1960s, at least in this country, one is reminded again of the student unrest on college and university campuses. And this again was reminiscent, or it was indicative, of the impatience that people had to move on to a new age. I can remember as well in the 1960 presidential election in the United States, there was this talk about the fact that society and the United States in particular seemed to be going nowhere in particular. But we needed to get on the move again. Issues like civil rights and things like that had been apparently put on the back burner. And there was a feeling that we needed to get on the move again. So people were thinking in a futuristic mindset.

At this same time, there were certain things that had been happening theologically. Let me mention some of the developments that were in the background of theology of hope. For one thing, we need to go back and take a look at neo-orthodoxy for just a moment. You remember that as we studied various neo-orthodox theologians, we noted that they had a very individualistic approach. They had a very subjectivistic approach to theology and to relationship to God. And yet as people reflected on this, they came to believe that this was no longer an adequate way to express the sense of optimism that was being felt, the idea of one being isolated, subjective, etcetera. At any rate, you remember that neo-orthodoxy had told us that the world could not and did not reveal God. It was impossible then to do anything like a natural theology.

We were told instead that God could only be known in a special encounter as He broke through from the transcendent realm. So if you are trying to portray the situation at that time and talk about how individuals were supposed to get evidence and even affirmation and assurance that there was in fact a God, the neo-



4 of 14

Lesson 02 of 24

orthodox approach was to say you can get that affirmation, you can get that assurance right now in your present everyday life by having this personal encounter with God. You do not have to look backward toward events in history. You don’t have to go through contingent historical books like the Bible to gain certainty in assurance of the fact that there is a God. And of course the thinking was that those methods wouldn’t be successful anyway. Rather one could have this kind of assurance in his own or her own personal experience by having this encounter.

You remember as well that Bultmann and his followers had eliminated a good bit of the history that was left surrounding the Bible by using the results of nineteenth-century higher criticism and using his demythologizing approach to Scripture. As result of that, we came to the conclusion that we really didn’t know a whole lot about the past, about the life of Christ, the events that are recorded in the Gospels and in the New Testament. If you wanted to get to God through historical research and study, that was going to be a dead end as well. Bultmann’s claim had been that one must proclaim the kerygma of Scripture to human beings where they are in their existential situation, but that had seemed to fail to give people real meaning, give them a sense of relationship to God. The world didn’t care to hear what was being said by the theologians, whether they were the neo-orthodox, the old-line liberals, or for far too much of mankind, the orthodox evangelical theologians. People didn’t want to hear that, and as result, church attendance and participation was dwindling. In the midst of all of this, we find then that God and access to Him is shut out from the standpoint of getting to Him through the past, through history, and those who said that you could get to Him in the present by having this encounter, while many felt that that wasn’t going to be sufficient. So the God-is-dead theologians read all the signs of what was happening, and they pronounced that God in fact was dead. He was locked out of history by the neo-orthodox and in particular by Bultmann and his approach. He was depersonalized by such people as Tillich. And theologians of the God-is-dead movement read all the signs and said let’s bury this God. We don’t want to have anything to do with Him.

In the midst of all of this, there was a particular theological reaction to what was happening. And that reaction is theology of hope. Theologians of hope refused to accept the verdict of the God-is-dead people, and they attempted to resurrect God by posing the question of God, not for the past or even the present, but for the future. Since neither heaven nor earth could reveal



5 of 14

Lesson 02 of 24

God, theologians of hope looked instead to the future for their answers. Essentially this meant that questions about God’s existence, any other questions you might have about God, are to be postponed for the future. We’ll get the answer at some time in a distant future.

Then future and hope and promise, promise with its futuristic outlook, are the keywords for this particular theological movement. Past and present have value only in service to the future. This was more in keeping with the mood of optimism, the desire to get on with things, and so there were many people who were attracted to this particular theological movement.

According to theology of hope, preaching to twentieth-century men and women needed to be adjusted as well in tune with the new message. Rather than focusing on the church as being active in the life of the individual and ministering to people as individuals, the focus of preaching now needed to be on the church as active in shaping society as a whole, And converting political and social structures to bring in the kingdom becomes a very, very significant idea in this theology. It changes theology from a kind of pastoral theology that focuses on ministering to individuals to a political theology that focuses on ministering to large groups of people and, in particular, helping them to gain social and political advantages that they did not have before. This part of theology of hope’s message was in part a response to the attitude of people especially in Third-World countries that there was a good bit of economic gain to be made, and they wanted to have a piece of the pie.Then the base of theology of hope is the future, the attitude for this theology is hope, and change winds up being the indispensable mark of sanctification.

Let me turn now and talk for just a little bit about the philosophical underpinnings of this movement. The key name here that we want to begin with is the philosopher and Ernst Bloch. He is the philosopher immediately behind theology of hope. A specific event in his life was very, very significant in the beginning of this theological movement. In 1961, he became professor at the University of Tübingen in Germany. It was during the 1960s that his path crossed there at Tübingen with that of Jürgen Moltmann, the Protestant theologian.

Bloch’s philosophy can be traced back through Karl Marx ultimately to Hegel. It is a philosophy that has been characterized as a philosophy of the “not yet.” You remember that Marx took



6 of 14

Lesson 02 of 24

Hegel’s dialectical movement. He threw out the Trinitarian emphasis. In fact, he threw out belief in God altogether, and he put in economics and political revolution as the force behind the dialectical movement of society and of history. Bloch’s thought is Hegelian and Marxist as well, although he did not see history developing into a communist proletarian kingdom on earth. Bloch sees the process of history moving on to the future, but he is more Hegelian than Marxist in that he does not see a specific direction or end or consummation toward which history is moving. Marx saw an ultimate time when heaven would be, so to speak, brought down on earth and there would be the final form of things with the rule of the proletariat.

Hegel saw history moving on inevitably into the future, but he didn’t see it as going so much toward a specific goal and a specific end point. And Bloch’s philosophy was much more Hegelian in this respect than Marxist. Likewise, you remember Christianity does see a specific future time when the kingdom will be brought to the earth, and it does see history as going somewhere. Bloch, on the other hand, sees the future as infinite and as never ending. And theologians of hope saw the future in that way as well.

Let me point out several areas in which Bloch and Marx had agreement. They agreed in the first place that matter provides the dynamic for mankind in history. By that I mean simply that history is being synthesized out of that which is material. Second, they agreed that no transcendent God controls the shape and the destiny of the future. Here the idea of a non-transcendent God is adopted into theology of hope. But a key thing here is that the God the theologians of hope are going to believe in is not a God who has some plan specifically for history that He’s working out. He’s not in control of things in the way that classical orthodox thinking had said.

Then a third area where Bloch and Marx agreed was that both of them saw history as developing, and they saw matter as what it develops from. It’s just that Bloch did not see history as leading in any specific direction. Answers to reality then for Bloch are all found in the future, although he would then add that no one has the vaguest notion of what they might be since nothing is predetermined. That future was sort of an open-ended, endless future so that though you were told that there might be answers, there should be answers in the future, when you got to things the future was open-ended. So one never had the sense that you’d actually get to that future where you could get the answers.



7 of 14

Lesson 02 of 24

Now that kind of idea of an open-ended future where nothing is predetermined is basic also to theology of hope. Bloch summarized his futuristic philosophy in a grammatical scheme that can be stated as follows. He says S is not yet P. Subject is not yet predicate. His philosophy can be summarized as well by the German phrase. I’ll give you the German phrase and then translate it: ontologia des nacht nicht zeins, the ontology of being-that-is-not-yet.

What this means is that the meaning of life finds its fundamental meaning in the future. The past and the present cannot be properly interpreted until they are seen in the light of the future. But of course this directionless future that Bloch was talking about leaves all categories and all questions open and elastic and provisional. We have to wait till we get there to see what’s actually going to happen.

Bloch himself converted these ideas into a philosophy of hope which expressed things in theological terms. And it was only then a matter of time until theological concepts were wedded to these philosophical ideas. The inner desires of men and women as they face the future could be called hope. Now hope in Christianity is oftentimes preceded by faith, and in many cases, it’s faith in the historical facts of what God has done and of course because of that faith in God. But here in Bloch’s thinking, hope is itself the basis of hope rather than faith being the basis of hope.

Bloch saw the Bible as the supreme expression of mankind’s radical hope. Human beings are portrayed in the Bible as creatures of promise who are oriented to the future. Bloch even sees a basis for his philosophy of the future and of hope in the very name Yahweh, which he translates not in the way that theologians typically have, “I am who I am.” Rather Bloch translates it as “I will be who I will be.” And if you have studied Hebrew and you know the details surrounding the Tetragrammaton for God, you know good and well that either of those translations is possible. It’s just that of course Bloch wants that futuristic one because that in his thinking will legitimize the theology and fit with the theology that he is presenting. Clearly the stage is set for a futuristic theology once Bloch had enunciated his futuristic philosophy. And indeed that’s what we find in the theology of hope of Jürgen Moltmann.

What I want to do now then is turn to some of the key concepts of theology of hope. And I’m going to take my thinking primarily from Moltmann’s Theology of Hope [1965; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993], although here and there I will also bring in some things



8 of 14

Lesson 02 of 24

from Carl Braaten’s The Future of God [1969; reprint ed., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016]. First of all, I want to look at theology of hope in its method of doing theology and hear what theologians of hope tell us: that we need to do theology as eschatology. What is the general approach then for doing theology as eschatology? As you well know from your studies in the past, eschatology has long been called the doctrine of the end or the doctrine of last things. Moltmann says that by relegating these events to the very last day, that has robbed them of their directive, uplifting, and critical significance for all the days in history that come before the end. Moltmann says, and I quote him from page 16, “Eschatology means the doctrine of the Christian hope which embraces both the object hoped for and also the hope inspired by it. Christianity then,” he says, “is eschatology. It is hope. It is forward looking, and it is forward moving. And, therefore, is also revolutionizing and transforming the present. If you are headed toward some major changes in the future in order to get there, there’s going to have to be some changes in the present.”

Moltmann then tells us that there is only really one real problem in Christianity and Christian theology, namely, the problem of the future. Let me read to you what he has to say about this. He says,

The eschatological is not one element of Christianity, but it is the medium of Christian faith as such, the key in which everything in it is set, the glow that suffuses everything here in the dawn of an expected new day; for Christian faith lives from the raising of the crucified Christ and strains after the promises of the universal future of Christ. Eschatology is the passionate suffering and passionate longing kindled by the Messiah. Hence, eschatology cannot really be only a part of Christian doctrine; rather the eschatological outlook is characteristic of all Christian proclamation, of every Christian existence, and of the whole church. There is, therefore, only one real problem in Christian theology which its own object forces upon it and which it in turn forces on mankind and on human thought, the problem of the future. The problem of the future then is the only problem with which Christianity deals.

How can Christian eschatology give expression to the future? Moltmann addresses this particular issue, and he says Christian eschatology does not speak of the future as such. Instead it sets



9 of 14

Lesson 02 of 24

out from a definite reality in history and announces the future of that reality, that is, its future possibilities and its power over the future. Here again let me read from Moltmann, and this is taken from page 17 of Theology of Hope. He shows us how this methodology works in regard to one’s understanding of Jesus Christ. Moltmann says,

Christian eschatology speaks of Jesus Christ and His future. It recognizes the reality of the raising of Jesus and proclaims the future of the risen Lord. Hence, the question whether all statements about the future are grounded in the person and history of Jesus Christ provides it with the touchstone by which to distinguish the spirit of eschatology from that of utopia. If, however, the crucified Christ has a future because of His resurrection, then that means on the other hand that all statements and judgments about Him must at once imply something about the future which is to be expected from Him. Hence, the form in which Christian theology speaks of Christ cannot be the form of the Greek logos or of doctrinal statements based on experience but only the form of statements of hope and of promises for the future. All predicates of Christ not only say who He was and is, but imply statements as to who He will be and what is to be expected from Him. They all say He is our hope (Colossians 1:27). In thus announcing His future in the world in terms of promise, they point believers in Him towards the hope of His still outstanding future.

That is just an example of the methodology put into practice of theology of hope, how you go about doing theology when you do theology as eschatology. Now typically theologians have said that the truth of a doctrine is to be found in the fact that the doctrinal formulation agrees with the existing reality that all can experience. Hope statements of promise, however, must stand in contradiction to the reality which can presently be experienced. Such promises don’t come from our existing experience, but they are the condition for the possibility of new experiences. So the truth of the doctrinal statements, let’s say, of theology of hope are not going to be verified by what presently exists. That’s not the case when you’re looking at a theology that is talking about the future.



10 of 14

Lesson 02 of 24

On pages 18 and 19 of his Theology of Hope, Moltmann talks about this contradiction between hope on the one hand and experience on the other. And let me just read to you from it. He says, “Present and future, experience and hope stand in contradiction to each other in Christian eschatology with the result that man is not brought into harmony in agreement with the given situation but is drawn into the conflict between hope and experience. We are saved by hope, but hope that is seen is not hope. ‘For what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it?’ (Romans 8:24–25) .”

Everywhere in the New Testament, Moltmann says,

the Christian hope is directed towards what is not yet visible. It is consequently a “hoping against hope” and thereby brands the visible realm of present experience as a God-forsaken, transient reality that is to be left behind. The contradiction to the existing reality of Himself and His world in which man is placed by hope is the very contradiction out of which this hope itself is born. It is the contradiction between the resurrection and the cross. Christian hope is resurrection hope, and it proves its truth in the contradiction of the future prospects thereby offered and guaranteed for righteousness as opposed to sin, life as opposed to death, glory as opposed to suffering, peace as opposed to dissension. Calvin perceived very plainly the discrepancy involved in the resurrection hope.

And then he quotes from Calvin, who says,

To us is given the promise of eternal life, but to us the dead. A blessed resurrection is proclaimed to us. Meantime we are surrounded by decay. We are called righteous and yet sin lives in us. We hear of ineffable blessedness, but meantime we are here oppressed by infinite misery. We are promised abundance of all good things, yet we are rich only in hunger and thirst. What would become of us if we did not take our stand on hope and if our heart did not hasten beyond this world through the midst of the darkness upon the path illumined by the Word and Spirit of God?



11 of 14

Lesson 02 of 24

And then Moltmann points out that these last statements were taken from Calvin’s comments on Hebrews chapter 11 and verse 1. Moltmann then says, “Hope in Christian eschatology must call us away from the rigidified utopia of realism. Christian eschatology sees reality and mankind in the hand of Him whose voice calls into history from its very end saying, ‘Behold I make all things new.’” And this in effect, if we can put it this way, is the marching order for theologians of hope, “Behold, I make all things new.” Let me read to you what Moltmann says on this matter on pages 25 and 26. He says,

Statements of hope in Christian eschatology must also assert themselves against the rigidified utopia of realism if they would keep faith alive and would guide obedience in love onto the path towards earthly, corporal social reality. In its eyes, the world is full of all kinds of possibilities, namely all the possibilities of the God of hope. It sees reality in mankind in the hand of Him whose voice calls into history from its end saying, “Behold I make all things new.” And from hearing this word of promise, it acquires the freedom to renew life here and to change the face of the world.

That gives you something of the theological methodology of theology of hope. Let me turn now, if I may, to look at the anti-neo-orthodox bent of this movement and of the time. Theology of hope, we might say, may be problematic in that it ignores God in the past or in the present wherever He is to be found. This might cheat man of the happiness of the present, we might say. Neo-orthodoxy emphasizes the present and knowing God in the present. After all it seems that the now is the only time in which we live. Let me share with you what Moltmann says about this particular problem, and then we’ll see what he is going to say in regard to how theology of hope can get around this problem of apparently ignoring the present. On page 27 in Theology of Hope he says,

Always the protests against the Christian hope and against the transcendent consciousness resulted from it has stubbornly insisted on the rights of the present, on the good that surely lies always to hand and on the eternal truth in every moment. Is the present not the only time in which man wholly exists, which belongs wholly to him, and



12 of 14

Lesson 02 of 24

to which he wholly belongs? Is the present not time and yet at once also more than time in the sense of coming and going? Namely “nunc” stands or now it is standing and to that extent also a “nunc aeternum,” now of eternity. Only of the present can it be said that it is. And only present being is constantly with us. If we are wholly present “tota simul” then in the midst of time we are snatched from the transient an annihilating workings of time.

So it appears then that a theology that looks to the future is going to be very much problematic, because it overlooks and underemphasizes the present. Neo-orthodoxy, on the contrary, allows us to have the eternal God present at every moment in our present, whereas theology of hope seems to make us lose that. We have to wait for God until the future, and of course it’s a never ending directionless future.

On page 30 in Theology of Hope, Moltmann gives us a comparison of the God of the present that is the neo-orthodox God as opposed to the God of the future, the God of theology of hope. Here’s what he says. He says,

Christian faith then means tuning in to the nearness of God in which Jesus lived and worked. For living amid the simple, everyday things of today is of course living in the fullness of time and living in the nearness of God. To grasp the never-returning moment, to be wholly one with one’s self, wholly self-possessed and on the mark is what is meant by God. The concepts of God which are constructed in remoteness from God and in His absence fall to pieces in His nearness. So that to be wholly present means that God happens for the happening of the un-curtailed present is the happening of God. This mysticism of being with its emphasis on the living of the present moment presupposes an immediacy to God which the faith that believes in God on the ground of Christ cannot adopt without putting an end to the historic mediation and reconciliation of God and man in the Christ event, and so also as a result of this, putting an end to the observation of history under the category of hope. This is not the God of hope. For the latter is present in promising the future: His own and man’s and the world’s future and in sending man into the history that is not yet. The God of the exodus and of the resurrection



13 of 14

Lesson 02 of 24

is not eternal presence. But He promises His presence and nearness to him who follows the path on which he is sent into the future.

Yahweh, as the name of God, who first of all promises His presence and His kingdom and makes them prospects for the future, is a God with future as His essential nature, a God of promise and of leaving the present to face the future, a God whose freedom is the source of new things that are to come. His name is not a cipher for the eternal present nor can it be rendered by the word El (Thou art). His name is a wayfaring name, a name of promise that discloses a new future, a name whose truth is experienced in history inasmuch as is promised discloses its future possibility. He is, therefore, as Paul says “The God who raises the dead and calls into being the things that are not” (Romans 4:17). This God is present where we wait upon His promises in hope and transformation. When we have a God who calls into being the things that are not, then the things that are not yet that are future also become thinkable because they can be hoped for.

Moltmann then goes on to distinguish two senses of the Greek word parousia and how that has been used in one way or another in different types of theology. On the one hand, the Greek word parousia as it was used oftentimes in Greek thinking, a Greek line of thinking which Moltmann says was basically taken over by neo-orthodox theologians, that use of parousia is to be distinguished from the parousia of Christ as it is presented in the New Testament.

Now what is this distinction? Moltmann says the parousia of Greek thinking and of the neo-orthodox theologians means simply “presence,” that is, it has an emphasis on the now and it has an emphasis on today. The parousia of Christ, on the other hand, as we find Him portrayed in the New Testament, is conceived in terms of categories of expectation. And in that case, parousia is not translated as “presence” but as “coming.” As you know from your study of Greek, the word parousia can be translated in either of those ways, “presence” or “coming.” Moltmann is taking those two senses and using them, if I can put it this way, sort of as labels for two different types of theology. And Moltmann with

Transcript - ST507 Contemporary Theology II: From Theology of Hope to Postmodernism© 2019 Our Daily Bread University. All rights reserved.

Christ-Centered Learning — Anytime, Anywhere

14 of 14

Theology of Hope: BackgroundLesson 02 of 24

his theology of hope would prefer the sense of parousia which is coming and thus looks toward the future.

Moltmann then says that the believer is not set, so to speak, at the high noon of life but at the dawn of a new day at the point where night and day grapple with each other, And right at that point is a point where there are certain things that are passing and there are other things that are coming into being. So rather than saying that believers should see their life as, to liken it in terms of a literal day, set out at high noon right in the midst of the daylight; rather he would prefer to portray things so that we could see human beings set right about at the time of dawn where night is passing and daylight is about to come, and there’s anticipation of the future.

In the next lecture we’re going to continue with what Moltmann has to say about looking at hope and distinguishing theology of hope from the neo-orthodox approach to things. We will then turn to see what Moltmann has to say in his Theology of Hope about how we should understand God and Christ and some of these other categories that are going to come up in that theology, but more on that in the next lecture.

Documents

Contemporary Theology II: ST507 From Theology of Hope to ... · From Theology of Hope to Postmodernism This is the second lecture in the course on contemporary theology. In our first