The language of ‘hope’ and ‘faith’ is not spoken in the safety industry despite extensive language about salvation and spirituality (https://safetyrisk.net/the-theology-of-blame-from-safety-science/; https://safetyrisk.net/safety-people-dont-save-lives/) in the safety industry. Recent comment about the spirituality of HOP  serves as an example of how salvation and safety merge in discourse. Similarly, we read in Dekker’s theology of Suffering many examples of biblical theology in the text and the same in a recent venture into spirituality (https://safetyrisk.net/the-theology-of-blame-from-safety-science/).

Yet, the language of hope and faith is foundational to all of this theological discourse and is central to the mystery of risk and fallibility (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/fallibility-risk-living-uncertainty/ ). Yet, these get no mention.

In the face of risk, all people hold in faith, the hope of a good outcome. However, as fallible people, there is no foresight or prediction about outcomes, such is the nature of risk.

Counter to this reality of being is the ideology of zero (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/) that doesn’t need to speak of hope, faith, resilience or fallibility because, perfection is made possible. Indeed, if one can’t hold to a belief in no harm or injury, one is questioned about one’s faith in zero (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-as-faith-healing/ ).

This week I was saddened by the death of one of the worlds great Christian theologians, Jurgen Moltmann (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2024/06/05/jurgen-moltmann-protestant-theologian-god-prisoner-war/ ). I first read Moltmann in 1980 and was transformed by his Theology of Hope (https://archive.org/details/theologyofhopeon00molt ).

Moltmann was greatly affected by the terror of Auschwitz and tackled the challenging question of Hope in the face of terror, suffering and evil. Like another great theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer (https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/dietrich-bonhoeffer), also troubled by inhumanity, suffering and the evil of the Holocaust, Moltmann wrote complex theology about how one could have faith in hope, in the face of evil. Moltmann published 40 books but his most significant was The Theology of Hope. I have also found his work on The Power of the Powerless (https://archive.org/details/powerofpowerless0000molt) and with his Feminist Theologian partner Elizabeth Wendel-Moltmann: Humanity in God (https://archive.org/details/humanityingod0000molt) very helpful.

Moltmann, Bonhoeffer and also Walter Bruggemann (https://archive.org/details/textsundernegoti0000brue ) ought to be foundational reading for anyone wishing to dabble in an understanding of theology. If you would like to study an overview of theology and risk we have a module available in SPoR (https://cllr.com.au/product/theology-and-risk-unit-18/ ) that can help an understanding and recognition of theology and religion in safety, where we see that safety=zero becomes god and we tackle the question of a theology in risk.

It is simply nonsense to read so much theological discourse in the safety industry about saving lives, heaven and spirituality, spruiked by sources with no expertise in theology. But why would we expect anything different from Safety (https://safetyrisk.net/enrol-in-first-course-in-safety-engineering-with-dr-barry-spud/ ) that uses Chemical Engineers to discuss culture and ethics (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-the-expert-in-everything-and-the-art-of-learning-nothing/), mental health, psychosocial risk, child development (https://www.linkedin.com/posts/mark-glover-shp_thesafetysuperhero-innovation-activity-7204578743678320641-zX_J ) and metaphysics!

Moreso, the god-like faith in zero as absolute saviour drives much of this unethical discourse in safety, so ably represented by the video The Spirit of Zero (https://safetyrisk.net/the-spirit-of-zero/). The Spirit of Zero, In the Blink of an Eye video poses a counter theology of absolute certainty in the face of fallibility, faith and absolute radical uncertainty (https://safetyrisk.net/radical-uncertainty/). Even when Safety speaks about imperfection it rarely goes much further than slogans and marketing (https://preaccidentpodcast.podbean.com/e/embracing-imperfection-a-safety-moment-with-todd/) to discuss the meaning and implications of fallibility.

So, watch the global safety video The Spirit of Zero for yourself (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIhgJ93t0Jw) and tell me that this is NOT apocalyptic theology: where limbs are restored and lives renewed in the name of Zero, the great false hope.

All of this is projected by global safety that made sure that zero was centre stage at the recent global congress in Sydney 2023 (https://visionzero.global/vision-zero-takes-centre-stage-world-congress). All enabled by sponsors and supporters of zero (https://safetyrisk.net/the-sponsors-of-zero-are/) When one knows so little about theology, such ignorance enables extensive theological discourse about zero without knowing it.

You can read about the religion of safety here:

Then there is the safety fixation with the mystical, superheroes and gurus in safety all wonderfully couched in silent metaphysics that is never articulated (https://safetyrisk.net/the-metaphysics-of-safety/). This is safety.

Yet despite all this religion, metaphysics and theology, Safety still remains scared to say the words ‘faith’, ‘hope’ and ‘fallibility’. Yet, these three are ever present in any discussion about risk and ‘being saved’. Why does Safety fear these words? How can one possibly discuss the unknown and uncertainty without a discussion of hope or faith? Yet Safety does so and its silences to these words despite all of its religious discourse, remains a mystery.