Jürgen Moltmann frequently writes about liberation theology, often drawing upon his experience working in Nicaragua in Latin America (the birth place of liberation theology) and within the critical context of his theology of hope. In Hope for the Church: Moltmann in Dialogue with Practical Theology, Moltmann contributes two remarkable essays within the theme of liberation theology with special emphasis on the poor, suffering and weak that are especially important for anyone who lives in any place that identifies piety with wealth, health or power. In this post, I will explore Moltmann's argument in the first essay "The Diaconal Church in the Context of the Kingdom of God" that the gospel of the Kingdom of God is for the poor, and the poor are the subjects of the Kingdom of God, not the objects; and in the second essay "Signs of the Spirit in the Fellowship Community of Christ" that the universalism of the Kingdom God means a one-sided identification with the poor. It's a fascinated double entendre criticism of both prosperity theology and liberation theology.

The poor are the objects, not the subjects, of the Kingdom of God

Moltmann explains in the first essay "The Diaconal Church in the Context of the Kingdom of God" that the poor are the subjects of the Kingdom of God, and the poor are not the objects of charity, love or generosity that comes from rich in the Kingdom of God. The poor are not only the heirs of the Kingdom of God, because they possess it here and now, as the evangelist said, "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" (Luke 6:20 NRSV). The practical meaning is that the rich are not tasked with helping the poor out of their charity, as if the rich were the subjects of the Kingdom of God, instead the rich are tasked with becoming like the poor, and having solidarity with the poor, to become fellow subjects of the Kingdom of God.

It's a hard message, especially for everyone who has material wealth, power or even health, to identify with the poor, sick, exploited, despised and persecuted (c.f. 2 Cor 8:9), and it is also a hard message to anyone who is poor that desires to be liberated from their captivity (c.f. Luke 4:18-19). Not only prosperity preachers will reject this statement but liberation theologians may reject this as an oppressive "poverty theology" too. 

Moltmann's conclusion that the poor are the subjects of the Kingdom of God, not only the objects, requires some explanation, so I've assembled several quotations from Hope for the Church that exemplify his argument:

Jesus' gospel points us clearly to "the poor." His Beatitudes identify them as those to whom the Kingdom belongs. Jesus, the one who heals the sick, who takes the lepers to himself, who is the "friend of sinners and outcasts," shows all too clearly where the kingdom of God is to be discovered—not at the top where the leading members of the society are to be found, where the rich, the healthy, and the talented congratulate themselves—but at the bottom, in the darkness, where no one notices. As Christoph Blumhardt once commented, Jesus grasps human society, so to say, "from its underside." Blumhardt was convinced that the quality of a society is best revealed in the quality of its hospitals, its mental institutions, its prisons. [1]

And, 

On earth the kingdom of God begins with the poor, the sick, and the lepers, the outcasts who are excluded from normal society. The New Testament speaks in terms of conflict in the world—the conflict between the healthy and sick, the righteous and sinners, the rich and poor, Pharisees and publicans—and strangely enough always in a one-sided way! Those who are well do not need a physician but rather the sick; there is more joy over one sinner who repents than over the ninety-nine righteous; poor Lazarus goes to Abraham's bosom while the rich man goes to hell; the publican goes home justified, the Pharisee does not. "Why this one-sidedness?" one might ask. In a one-sided, inhumane world of conflict, the saving element can only be represented by a reality is also one-sided that brings about God's righteousness by redressing the balance. [2]

And,

If the poor, the sick, and the rejected are called "blessed," then they are not the objects of Christian charity, generosity, and love. They are rather first of all fellow members of the Kingdom (Matt 5:3) and "brothers" of the Son of man, who will judge the world (Matt 25:31ff). They must be respected for their dignity, honor, and worth; therefore they are subjects in the kingdom of God, not the objects of our sympathy. Every act of help is preceded by our fellowship in common, and every act of caring has its origins in Christian fellowship. Before you can be for others you must live with others. 

We find the kingdom of God with Jesus when we enter into community with the poor, the sick, the sorrowing, and the guilty, recognizing them as fellow members of the Kingdom, and are accepted by them as their brothers and sisters. But to find the Kingdom in this way inevitably means at the same time a critique of the rich and the healthy, the self-satisifed and self-righteous. And this critique always means some alienation from the present order of things. Indeed, "alienation" may well be the form which biblical "self-denial" takes in our day. [3]

The Universalism of the Kingdom of God is a one-sidedness with the poor

In Moltmann's second essay "Signs of the Spirit in the Fellowship Community of Christ" in Hope for the Church he repeats a Moltmann-ism that he repeats in many of his books that shows that Moltmann is not advocating for a "poverty gospel." Moltmann explains that the gospel of the Kingdom of God has a universal orientation, that abolishes the division between the rich and poor, the healthy and sick, and the strong and weak. Practically the universalism of the Kingdom of God does not mean impartial benefit to both sides of these divisions, instead it means one-sided siding with the poor, sick and weak, in order to end all divisions. By consistently siding with the poor, liberation theology's goal of delivering victims from their victimizing by their victimizers, but also victimizers will also be delivered from victimizing their victims. 

Good news to the poor, healing the sick, justifying sinners—all of these appear one-sided. In a world divided into rich and poor, healthy and sick, good and bad, etc., the universalism of the kingdom of God can only be demonstrated through one-sided and clear identification with those who are exploited, despised and persecuted. Just as Jesus' mission to all humanity first took the form of a mission to the oppressed, so also the Christian community is present for everyone only when it is first present for the poor, the sick, the sinners. In a divided world, universalism and identification with a particular party or cause are not antithetical. [4]

Moltmann's essay is particularly impressive because explains that the gospel is specifically for the poor, and to embrace the poor, one must embrace the poor, who are the direct recipients of the gospel. Gospel is not for the rich, nor does it compel the rich to give to the poor, but instead the gospel is for the poor, because the poor are the people of god, and to belong to the people of god, then all must become poor with the poor, and join the "underside of society" as Moltmann explains: 

For this reason the kingdom of God must first be preached to the "poor." They—and not the rich—are blessed (Luke 6:20). According to Matthew 11:28 the poor are those "who labor and are heavy laden." And according to Matthew 25:31ff, those who are hungry, thirsty, imprisoned, and sick belong to the poor. The new creation of life for the whole world begins precisely with those who now exist on the edge of death. This is the proclamation of the gospel to the poor: a hopeless and unsaved people (ochlos) is called to become the messianic people (laos) of the coming Kingdom. The new creation begins on the "underside of society," and emancipation begins with the lowly. [5]

Liberation theology is a frequent postbarthian theme, and another liberation theologian that has influenced me is James H. Cone's black liberation theology, including his identification of liberation theology with the gospel. I recommend reading James H. Cone to complement what Jurgen Moltmann has written in Hope for the Church to supplement and critique each other. Another example of liberation theology is Karl Barth's Barmen Declaration that also complements these theologians, and has influenced them both. If liberation theology was defined by one verse, it would be Luke 4:18ff, that says the gospel is good news to the poor (c.f. Luke 6:20). 

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” - Luke 4:18-19 (NRSV)

Sources:

1. Jurgen Moltmann, Hope for the Church: Moltmann in Dialogue with Practical Theology, "The Diaconal Church in the Context of the Kingdom of God", p.24

2. Ibid. pp.24-5

3. Ibid. p.25, [bold added for emphasis]

4. Jurgen Moltmann, Hope for the Church: Moltmann in Dialogue with Practical Theology, "Signs of the Spirit in the Fellowship Community of Christ", p.45-46, [bold added for emphasis]

5. Ibid. p.45.

6. Header image source: wikipedia