This paper presents aspects of a larger project that will be published in 2026 called Hope and the Future of Humanity. In the book, I consider two contexts for eschatological reflection, i.e. transhumanism and ecology. These two contexts gain increasing attention from philosophers, theologians, political thinkers and futurists. As Jonathan White writes on the notion of future in politics: “In a world of expected tipping points and exponential change, from climate change to artificial intelligence, this capacity to find orientation in the face of the unpredictable seems more important than ever” (White 2024, 211). Christians should participate in this debate since when we remove God from the cosmic imaginary, we dissolve the future (Minich 2023, 226).
For the ETS session, I present an argument for why the Christian hope is different from the hopes presented by transhumanists and ecological thinkers. This is an argument related to the classical discussion of continuity versus discontinuity in eschatology. Both transhumanists and ecologists advocate a future that is entirely dependent on the present. This implies that all we can hope for is dependent upon present causal forces (Burdett 2015; Latour 2024). This is the kind of eschatological thinking Jürgen Moltmann called “futurum”, i.e., nothing fundamentally new can occur (See also Ellul 1981, 98 and Han 2024,19).
However, Christian eschatology presents another hope that is connected to the power of God that can effect new causal forces and create fundamentally new possibilities. This interference is called “adventus” by Moltmann (Moltmann 1964). According to Ellul, only when the human hope is emptied, the Hope of eternity can enter (cf. Rom. 4:18).
According to Kevin Hector, however, the price to be paid for discontinuity is a lack of intelligibility (Hector 2023, 243). But his criticism overemphasizes the point of discontinuity. For the Scriptures refer to Christ’s resurrected body as the firstfruits of the Eschaton (1. Cor. 15:20) and his body is characterized by both continuity and discontinuity (Pannenberg 1968, 99). Christ’s resurrection is, as Pannenberg said, what makes Christian eschatological trustworthy (Pannenberg 2001).
What Christ’s resurrection tells us is that life’s foundational contrast between life and death is not symmetrical. Life has ontological precedence (Puntel 2025). Both transhumanists and ecologists attach their views to evolutionary life processes and here the asymmetry is hidden, which flattens the only hope they can possibly imagine within their theoretical frameworks (Kurzweil 2024; Lear 2006). The doctrine of creation ex nihilo on the other hand highlights life’s precedence and calls for a strenghtening of a truer hope, also allowing for future discontinuity.
Another important point is, that since the eschatological hope is inevitably linked to the need for a redemption from sin and its consequences, it is not possible either to accept continuity alone or to balance life and death ontologically (Minich 2023). As such, what is needed for today’s public discussions of humanity’s hope is a well-reflected Christian eschatology.