Hope and Christian Ethics by David Elliot (review)

A scholar embodies true mastery of a subject when she or he is able to explain complex matter in a way that a novice might understand. Elliot provides a succinct, clear, and eloquent case for eschatological hope to be taken seriously in the field of Christian ethics as a theological virtue that may serve as a valid path toward human flourishing. Elliot insists that the virtue of hope "makes an important and recognizable contribution to the good life, primarily in terms of personal happiness, but secondarily in terms of social goods" (2).

Elliot's most inspired contribution is an insightful study into what he calls the "eudemonia gap." Human happiness is threatened by tragedy and pain of all kinds. Because of our embodied finitude, these threats create a gap between "the kind of happiness we want" and "the kind of happiness we can reasonably get" (5). This impossible tension creates a crisis, as even our best human efforts to close this gap are doomed to fail. We require divine agency promised by the theological virtue of hope to better negotiate the gap in this life and to anticipate its closure in the next. Hope "disarms the eudemonia gap of its worst weapon, despair" (158) and introduces a policy of "zealous patience" (142) expressed by the beatitudes to flourish in conditions of imperfect happiness.

Elliot roots the study of hope and the pursuit of the good life firmly in the realm of philosophy by engaging with secular moral philosophers and leads them to the far reaches of the philosophical realm, where "reason cannot really go further without revelation," where theology must necessarily take over "if we are to hope at all" (43). Based upon Aquinas's argument for the neglected theological virtue of hope, Elliot retrieves hope from the shadows of faith and charity to exist as a live option for those tempted to despair. Using Aquinas's understanding of God's grace as the source of perfect happiness, Elliot removes hope from the realm of emotion or simple optimism. Theological hope is a virtue of the will which "enables one to rely on God to reach ultimate beatitude" (62).

In an effort to show the universality of human striving for eudemonia, Elliot not only engages philosophers and theologians in his conversation, but also invites poets, musicians and artists to contribute thoughts on the hopeful life. The only critique I have of Elliot's work is questioning whether there are truly so few black, Latinx, Indigenous, or Asian theologians, philosophers or poets who might serve as interlocutors on hope.

Elliot hopes to engage lay audiences, as well as scholars of Christian ethics, moral philosophers, and those pursuing social justice. For Elliot, hope has much to offer each of these fields, and in fact offers them a common ground from which to pursue the good life. In perhaps his most pastoral section, Elliott directly speaks to lay audiences as he describes the relationship of death and dying with hope, which offers unique resources for facing death. An examination of "the hopeful death" elated to the field of deathcare practices has some interesting pedagogical consequences.

Elliot is committed to honoring the eschatological ends of hope while keeping the work of hope firmly rooted in this world (187). Hope, as a theological virtue, is primarily concerned with God. However, the hopeful must necessarily be citizens of two worlds who "seek happiness first in the earthly city, but ultimately in the heavenly city" (160). As citizens of the earthly city, eschatological hope by nature has a communal aspect which necessarily leads to social justice (194). Theological hope in its nature labors for the common good of society. Elliot's book serves as an excellent resource for scholars of Christian ethics and those invested in social justice, but it is also a work of encouragement and a call to action in an era of human history rife with hopelessness.