Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Unsystematic Theology

Home
Progressive Christian
“The Pope v. the Donald”: Two Contrasting Eschatologies?

“The Pope v. the Donald”: Two Contrasting Eschatologies?

Last updated on: February 18, 2016 at 4:19 pm by Kyle Roberts

“The Pope v. the Donald”: Two Contrasting Eschatologies? 2016-02-18T16:19:58-05:00 Kyle Roberts

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

What makes a true Christian? Who gets to determine that?

That’s the most obvious question raised by today’s very public brouhaha (of sorts) between Donald Trump and Pope Francis.

By Benhur Arcayan (Malacañang Photo Bureau) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

In an interview on the “papal plane,” the controversial and much-loved Pope, said that Donald Trump’s views of immigration suggests he is “not Christian.” Trump’s stated immigration policies–i.e. promising to build a huge wall across the Mexican border–drew the judgment of the Pope who contrasted the building of walls with building bridges.

The gospel, the Pope said is about building bridges, not about erecting walls.

Trump responded (as only Trump can) to the Pope’s suggestion with some strong words and a hypothetical scenario: But if ISIS attacks the Vatican, the poor Pope will surely wish he had prayed for a Trump presidency. Because, of course, Trump will destroy ISIS if he becomes president. In Trump’s words:

“If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been President because this would not have happened. ISIS would have been eradicated unlike what is happening now with our all talk, no action politicians…”

This is a fascinating back-and-forth between an American presidential candidate and a current pope.

The “what’s a true Christian?” question is interesting and important, but that’s not the question I’m going to take on. (For that question, I defer to Kierkegaard’s suggestion that, given the lofty expectations given in the gospels of what Jesus calls for in disciples, it’s probably best for most of us not to claim to be Christians–becoming Christian, perhaps).

What I find buried beneath the comments of both the Pope and the Donald are two drastically differing eschatologies. That is, two different conceptions of history, the purpose of creation, and its ultimate end. Sandwiched between those big things are the more practical questions regarding how we understand power, how we understand God’s providence, and how we treat our neighbors and strangers.

Regular readers of this blog may know that I’ve been working again through Moltmann’s The Coming of God for a class I’m teaching called “Immortality and Hope.” Consider this passage and its implications for “The Pope v. the Donald”:

Politically speaking, history is always a struggle for power and for domination over other people and over nature.

The person who possesses power is concerned that history should continue to run its course toward the goal he has designed for it. He understands future as the prolongation of his own present, so that he swears by economic growth and scientific progress, and seeks the increase of the power he already has.

But the people who are dominated and powerless have no interest in the long-term prolongation of this history. On the contrary, they are concerned that it should find a speedy end. Better an end with terror than a terror without end, says a German proverb. Those who are dominated, hope for an alternative future, for liberation from present misery an deliverance from their helplessness.

Like all other knowledge, eschatology is always determined by its concerns, while at the same time it also determines those concerns.

It has been said many times in recent months, but at least part of the appeal of Trump is that he offers the prolongation of power to those who have sensed that they have lost power (money, prestige, influence, opportunity) while others have gained it. But the seemingly desperate attempt to cling to that power–and to be drawn in by the promise of securing that power–seems to often to come at the continued expense of those who are very much still on the “underside” of history.

Granted, the Pope has a lot of power. And globally speaking, a lot more power and influence than Donald Trump. As a free-church Protestant myself, I’ve long been uncomfortable with the papacy, the Vatican, and so on. (For that matter, the current pope seems fairly uncomfortable with it, too).

In any case, the thing about power is that one can always choose to use that power on behalf of the oppressed, the vulnerable, the disenfranchised.

Beneath the verbiage of today, the back and forth, illustrates–I think–that the way we think about power and use power is also connected to our understanding of who is ultimately in control of the world and how society’s most vulnerable are treated.

As for the second paragraph in that Moltmann quote:

But the people who are dominated and powerless have no interest in the long-term prolongation of this history. On the contrary, they are concerned that it should find a speedy end. Better an end with terror than a terror without end, says a German proverb. Those who are dominated, hope for an alternative future, for liberation from present misery an deliverance from their helplessness.

My point in quoting it here is not to suggest that Pope Francis is one of the “dominated and powerless.” Nor is it to suggest that he–or those who are truly dominated and powerless–would welcome a violent and speedy end, or would invite their brutal destruction at the hands of ISIS as an opportunity for an apocalyptic liberation to a better future!

It is simply to say that underlying the Christian eschatology represented by Pope Francis is a trust in God as the sovereign lord over history; not a trust in the powers of the world. This shift in allegiance allows for one to open oneself to the other in a posture of vulnerable embrace and sacrificial acceptance.

It’s about building bridges, not walls.

While eschatology is not typically a topic of political debate, it might often be rumbling underneath; and it can show up in public, from time to time.

For more theology posts and discussions, like/follow Unsystematic Theology on Facebook

Previous Post

February 17, 2016

Brueggemann's Prophetic Imagination and the "Book that Breathes"

Next Post

February 19, 2016 "The Gods Favor Those Who Conquer": On the Myth of Redemptive Violence (Walter Wink)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month December 2020 November 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 December 2018 July 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz