What if the narrative of hope, in fact, is hopeless for the oppressed? Even oppressive? If hope is hopeless, can hope be found in the middle of hopelessness? The aim of this study is to define a hopeful and sustainable theology of hope for the oppressed. 

This study is a literature analysis on three authors offering different perspectives on oppression, as well as various models of hope. By connecting the lynching era of black americans in Cross and the Lynching Tree by James H. Cone, theories on affect in relation to oppression in Grave attending by Karen Bray, and the conflict of borders and dualism in Borderlands by Gloria Anzaldúa the study seeks to discuss hope in relation to oppression. 

The literary material is initially categorized by each author separately and analyzed with three identical topics. The first topic- Oppression, defines how each author describes oppression. In the second topic- The Utopian Hope, hope is problematized in relation to oppression in the light of models presented by the author. Ultimately the third topic, The Hope of Gap, seeks to define how hope for the oppressed can be found in between hopelessness and hope. 

The analysis indicates several problematic effects of a dualistic view of hopelessness and hope, effects that rather result in hopelessness than hope. To form a hopeful theology for the oppressed the analysis instead emphasizes the importance of the gap inbetween as a vital link between hopelessness and hope. Each author addresses this with different models, but with similar functions in transcending dualisms. In relation to Cone the gap can be understood as telling the stories of hopelessness as a source of hope. Bray highlights the importance of the grave in the christian narrative, as the gap connecting the crucifixion and resurrection where emotional affects such as grief, anger, sorrow, anxiety and depression are expressed. Anzaldúa defines the gap as a borderland, nepantla, which is a hybrid and performative state of change and becoming that she means has been cut straight through by unnatural oppressive boundaries. 

In conclusion a hopeful hope for the oppressed confirms hopelessness and hope, as mutually dependent in a dialectical relationship, rather than as antagonists.