Vol. X S S l I S p r i n ~ , 1968 S o . 1
.---
'I'trl;. SIYIINGFIBI-DER is p~lhl i~hed quarterly by the fac~llty of Con-
conlia 'T hcological Seminary, Spyin pfield. I Ilir~ois, of the i-utlleran
Church - XiIissouri Sy rlod.
--
2 - I I l l T O ~ ~ I t ~ T , CO h!l hIlT'I'I1E
T ~ I C I I I-I. I-!E,INTZEN, Editor
I > . . I Y ~ I o ~ \ ; T ~ F. SUHRI~RG, Book. Review Editor
Ilavlu 1). Sc-~r:c,. ,l\ssoc'inte Editor
R I A ~ ~ I s . J . S'I'EI:,GL, :\ssocinte Editor
P ~ : ~ s x i ~ a x , r J . A. 0. I '~eus , ex officio
Contents P ~ ~ G E
I ~ ~ ~ l T O ~ ~ J !41,
'1'0 tllc Ill-etl~ren of tllc Church 3
Gcol+gc I)olal; : ,\ 1'1-ibute 5
.I-l-IF SbIC:lP>F OF CH1:IS'TIAN 'I"tII~,OLO(;Y I N THE
SIXTIES .IN) ,4 w1)1-:srr PHOPOSIII~ FOR
ITS RESL'1II~I:C;'l'ION 24
JOHK \Vanw~cl ; R/IOIVTGOMERY, 'Trinit! E~~angelical
1)ivinit); School, 11et.l-fie'lcl, Tllinois
BOOK REVLE\\:S 44
H O O K S RECEIVE,D 69
Itrdcwd in INDEX TO RELIGIOUS PERIODICAL ITERATURE, yz~blisked by the
Amcrjcun Theological Librar). Association, Spcer Library, Princeton Theo-
logical Scmfnary, Princeton, New Jersey.
Clcrg) changes of address reported to Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis,
Missouri, will also cover mailing change of Tho Springfielder. Other changes
uf rddrerr should be sent to the Business Manager of The Springfielder, Con-
cordia 'l'hcalogical Seminary, Springfield, W o i s 62702.
Addrtrs curnmunimtionr to the Editor, Ench H. Heintzen, Concordia Theo-
logical Seminary, Springfield, Illinois 62702,
The Suicide of Christian Theology
In the Sixties and a Modest Proposal
For Its Resurrection
A. invitational presentatiorr at the illcMaster LTz1i17ersity Teache
Irt, Hamilton, Ontario, Canaan, November 1 7- 1 9 , 1 96 7 , in rlialogue
1l1ith the Hev. Gregory Basm, O.S.A., Dr. William G. Pollard, and
Kesigzzed Bishop James A . Pihe.
I . A Disqzrieti~rg Parabolic lntroduction
P A U L TILLICH'S Chicago Uni\lersity Law School lecturcs h a v e
just been published posthumously under thc title, illy Search f o r
Absohrtcs.' This work is significant not only because of the l ec tu res
themselves, which represent Tillich's last major thoughts, bu t also
because of the striking i l l u s t r a t i o n s prepared for the vo l~ lme b y
Tillich's close friend Saul Steinberg. One of Steinberg's d r a w i n g s
well depicts the theme of the present essay. It pictures two m e n on
:I teeter-totter poised at the edge of a cliff. T h c man on the e n d
of the board \vhich extends over the abyss is firing a fatal shot a t h i s
cornpasion who stands on the safe end of the board. T h e result of
this action is, of course, the destruction not only of thc one who re-
ccivt.5 thc lx~llct hut ;ilso of the one who fires it, since, when the sho t
its mark and the murdered Illan falls, tlic teeter-totter w i l l
tlmro\~ the kilkr into thc clmasln. In killing his supposed encmy, the
aggressi\.e gunman ha5 in reality killed hinIsdf, for he \vas d e p e n d e n t
on him for his O \ Y ~ lift.
'This, in i l ly judgment. is thc sac1 state of contenmporary t h e o l -
og! : in {iring \\hat is tliougl~t to bc a fatal shot at Christian o r t h o -
dox). the modern thcologinn has only succeeded in killing h i m s e l f ,
for he has clin\i~~:itcd the sole raisoll d'etre for his o\\ln existence. H e
has, in effect, conlinittccl su icidc. 'To understand this suicidal pheno-
nienon, \ye I ~ I L I S ~ tirst lake ;i close look at its context, both secular a n d
relip,ic,us.
.17h.e Secular Dilelnnza
'l'hcologians of st.culnrit\ such as "death-of-Coders" \ 17 i l l i anx
Hal~~i l ton and Thonl;~s A1tizr:r. urban theologians such as I - larvey
Cox and Gibson IVintrr. and theological p u n d i t s such as J a m e s
2lcCord of I'rinceton, infornm us that secular society has finally over -
come its nri~rotic guilt feelings and is on the verge of a new era of
optimisni, megalopolitan ;rrcornplishment, and social p rog re s s - - an
cra ~vhich Inn! \ \ i \ ' l .i\e rise to a new nalne for Gad and a new c o n -
ception of thc \\ 'I . . : ! .rig of thc Spirit.?
Sad to I :lo:\ cr. ;I closer look at the evidence belies a n y
\ L K ~ 1ntetprvr.111~~1~ \ r l to l~ in~ ' s fib R ~ o I I ~ - C p has been her;,lded as a
T12c S~t jc idc of Christirrrz 'l'hcolog) i r l 1 1 7 ~ Sixtics 2 5
clear proof that the "op" generation has confidently thrown off the
troubling restrictions of Christian morality and is norv delightfully
reinstituting Eden by a perillissivc sexual code and an autonomous,
self-created situation ethic. But sensitii e observers of l I l o ~ r ~ - U j ~ \\rill
have noted thc real theme of the fi 1111: the brooding, unsatisfied
quest for reality in which the photographer-hero engages-a quest
~vllich is left uilsatisfied by his sexual acl~~enturcs and which finally
collapses in his solipsistic inability to distinguish between the real
world and the world of self-created photographic artistry:;
Three recent French films have illadc this point with even more
telling effect. Alain Jessua's Jezt de Mnssncre, which received the
best scenario award at Can~les this year, presents an op cartoonist
who loses his wife to the absurd and immature life-modcl of his car-
toon character, the "killer of Ncuchatel"; as in Bloqt7 U p , the blending
of fiction and reality in nlodern life is relentlessly destroying the
values and personalities of the modern man who gives himself up to
the spirit of the times. I11 Le Cra~rd Dadais, a twenty-year old, taken
as the synlbol of contenlporary youth, listells seriously to thc caco-
pl-rony of slogans modern life offers for achieving happiness: secular
success and hedonistic love. In religjously putting these values into
practice, hc makes a shamble of his life. Jean-Luc Godard's Ida
Chinoise, which produced an uproar at Cannes ancl offended both
Marxists and anti-Communists, tells of the endeavor of five French
studcnts to inject incaning into their livcs through Rlao's "red book."
Instead of facing the self-centeredness which stalks them at every
point, they sublimate their real nlotivations by absorption in the to-
tally secularized gospel of revolutionary Con~munism. They think
that they arc following Mao's axiom: "I1 faut confronter les idkes
vagues avoc des images claires"; but in actuality they fall into the
worst kind of intellectual, moral, and personal chaos.
One of the best descriptioils of the current secular dilenlnla is
provided by Greenwich V i 1 1 a g e cartoonist Jules Feiffer's fable,
"George's Moon."' George, the lone inhabitant of the moon, repre-
sents contemporary man in his fruitless search to discover meaning
in life. His grandiose intellectual attempts ( A la 19th century ideal-
ism) to construct a universal philosophy border on the absurd ("If I
am here and I can see space then space IIIUS~, ill all logic, be able to
see nze. . . ."); his endeavor to lose himself in activistic progranls
leave him totally unsatisfied, for they introduce no real meaning into
his existence ("What good was it to collect rocks, to count craters,
to fill the craters you've counted with the rocks you've collected,
to eillpfy the craters and collect the rocks all over again?") ; and his
existential effort to establish universal significance by total concen-
tration on his own existence results in the loss of his personal start-
ing-point ("Since he was the only thing around, George decided to
believe in himself. . . . Then he awoke one morning and found that
he had forgotten his name").
The current preoccupation with psychedelic drugs is an exten-
sion of this existential quest. Having lost confidence in the reality
and signiticancc of the external world, many today seek to uncover,
tll r o r l 21, i l I-U:~, a hidden reality within themselves. The kind of
"reality" encountered has been put in serious doubt by psychedelic
experts such as French specialist Roger Heim, who found that a cat
who has received LSD recoils in fear from a mouse;;' but the very
use of psychedelic techniques, regardless of their results, shows how
dissatisfied modern man is with his ~ecular existence and how far he
will go to inject meaning into his world.
Philosopher J. Glenn Gray, in his article, "Salvation on the
Campus: Why Existentialism Is Capturing the S t ~ d e n t s , " ~ has Per-
ceptively argued that today's focus on existential subjectivity Para-
doxically arises from the desperate search for "some authority, both
private and public, that will possible authentic individuality *"
However, concludes Gray, who has done depth studies in German
existentialism : "I doubt that Existentialist philosophy can ultimately
satisfy the search for authority." At best it merely offers to those "not
yet able or ready to act" an "escape from the morass of conformity.
la dolce vita, borcclom, and . . . meaningless competitiveness."
Traditionally, Christian theology has seen its prime task a t t h i s
wry point: it has sought to lend men to the only "authority" that can
create "authentic indi~idualit("'t1~~ God who revealed IIimself in
the living \Vord, Jcsus Christ ,' through the written Word, Holy Scrip-
ture. IVllat about toclay's theology? HO\V effectively is i t c a r ry ing
oiit this task?
'2'llc. Ke1igiozt.s L>ile~~l?na
On October 3 1, the 450th Anniversary of the Reformation re-
mindccl (:hristentloin of Alartin Luther, who typifies the great thee-
logia~ls of former (lays. I ,~lthcr made illany mistakes, but equivoca-
tion i d uncertainty were not among them. His stand at M 7 0 r m s
("1 am bound b \ the Scriptures adduced, and my conscience has
hccn tilken capt i~~c by tlie \\'ord of God; I all, neither able nor w i l l i n g
to recilnt"); hic oj)l>ositio~l to all rc la t iv i~ in~ of the truth of H o l y
Scripture ("1 ni'lkc it ~ n j invnriable rule," he wrote to E r a s m u s ,
"\tcatlf~stl) 10 atlhcrt to the sacred test jn all that it teaches, a n d to
assert th:lt tciiching. . . . Vnccrtainty is the lllost t h i n g in
~korld") ; hi\ great 11) ~l,nod\ (".4 hlligJlty Fortress IS O u r God")
-e'vcr)' aspect of his cnrcer tli~i>la)-~(l his conviction that
has spoken c , ~ c ; ~ I - I ~ , rcrc;,ling His \\.ill to man and < l e m a n d i n g
;) re513on\c of t ru \ t and faith in this clear revelation.i A silllilar de-
*(rii'tion ~ o u l d apld\ . with little ~ ~ h ~ t ~ ~ j t i r ~ chanF, to Augus t ine .
Tl)onl:l~ \(lltin.l<. \ \ i ' ~ ~ l c ) . Nc\\rnan, or to ally other qreat theologian
0 1 t lw C,llr~\t~,\~i p,i\t.
I t tht' ~ '~ ' ' -? . ( ) t l l rell~ur) theologi:~n could be sclllpted as Luther
1. J t ( 1 1 1 \ \ ~ l t t e 1 1 ~ l ~ r ~ - s l a l i ( l i l ~ ~ foIthriglltly and preach-
InR f ru l l l c;()cl'\ 1 I(jl! f\ord --lhc colltcl1lllorarr tlleologian might be
rcprc\cntccl \larrcl ~ )~ ich : im~ ' s "Nude Dckcnding Staircase"
1 1 1 1 J ) 1 110 s~lh\td~lcc. I'hat this is b) no lneans an cxaggera-
Iloll 1)~ ' cCC 11 i l l \ I U ~ / C I I B ~ ~ C of the of learrled representad
I l \c \ 0 1 1llc t:111h i l l LOCI.I\"* r l o \ ~ \ \ dlld films. \i-orden's
The ,Yztici~E~ of C1zristi~1)z Thcologv in thc Sixtics 2 7
Boston University doctoral dissertation%n the American film situa-
tion froin 195 1 to 1960 and T-lorton Davies' studv of contcn~porary
fictionqisplay the theological representative in an exceedingly poor
light. Typical is Peter DeVries' hilarious but tragic portrayal of lib-
eral clergyman "Holy" Mackerel, whose confusion of belief is so ap-
palling that his idea of church architecture is to create a pulpit with
"four legs of four delicately differing fruitwoods, to symbolize the
four Gospels, and their failure to harnlonize.'""
This is perhaps the contemporary emancipated cleric at his
worst; but the extent of present theological decline is as readily shown
by the common attribution of Luther-like qualities to any modern
theologian who takes a stand of any kind-even if (or particularly
i f?) it involves his stalwart refusal to make ony positive presentation
of Christian doctrine at all. Luther shook the world because he cou-
rageously endeavored to reassert the biblical Gospel; today's "Luthers"
are theologians who steadfastly maintain their inability to believe or
proclaim historic Christian truth any longer. So parched is the des-
ert of contemporary theology that any act of faith-even if it is a
commitment to unfaith-becomes a mirage suggesting Luther him-
self.
How has this sad state of affairs come about? M7hy is contem-
porary theology seemingly incapable of offering any firill word to
modern secular man? How is it that the secular dilemnla of uncer-
tainty is illatched by an equal if not greater religious uncertainty?
Perhaps the best way to understand the self-destruction of contem-
porary theology is by way of- a modern parable. I call it "The Parable
of the Engineers."
Once a corps of engineers was assigned to continue the building
of a magnificent cathedral which had already been under construc-
tion many centuries and which had benefitted froill the devoted labor
of great engineers of many generations. Some of the new engineers,
however, began to question the architectural soundness of the plans.
They said that the plans had numerous errors and contradictions in
them. When asked for clarification by some of their fellows, they
pointed out that architectural styles were changing and that the plans
erroneously presented older stylistic characteristics and contradicted
current styles. In reply, a few engineers noted that this did not make
the plans erroneous or contradictory in themselves, and that is was
the architect's business to draw the plans and thc engineers' to follow
them. The majority did not agree, but they did not want to cast di-
rect aspersions on the architect or abandon the construction. So they
had recourse to a number of stratagms.
1 First, they argued that though the plans were erroneous and
coiltradictory this was not thc architect's fault and should be attrib-
uted to his draughtsmen. (Intransigent engineers claimed that the
architect was always responsible for his draughtsmen, but this argu-
ment was brushed aside.) Endeavors were thus made to ignore the
"draughtsmen's errors" while accepting the architect's "true ideas" as
conveyed by the draughtsmcn's plans. But since the ollly kliowledge
of the architect's ideas came by way of the draughtsmen's plans, this
endeavor miserably failed and led to more radical suo,g~stions. (It is
perhaps worth pointing out that wllilc these discuswons went on ,
relatively little building was done.)
-
2 Then thc engineers argued that the purpose of the plans
had been misunderstood. They were not intended to be followed as
such, but contact with them would increase the engiiieer's inner sen-
sitivity to true building methocls. But one engineer's imier sensitivity
did not produce the same results as another's, considerable confusion
set in, and a tower collapsed.
3 A particularly brilliant engineer now suggested that every-
thing in the plans was symbolic of thc architect himself. However7
it was soon discovcrecl that if everything lvnr symbolic and nothing lit-
er;~], no engineer could detcrlnine the meaning of any part icular
clrlnelit in thc plans. More disputes set in, alld allother section of
the building crulnblccl.
4 Sow the people for whom the cathedral was bcillg built
\%ere bccoli1ing more anrl lllore agitated and many would not e n t e r
thr half complctcd rdificc at all because of the danger of f a l l i n g
stoncs. lmsc mort:lr, and l,iickling floors. Some were even crying for
a ~ i c w staff of cngincers. This made the engineers terribly nervous
iilld cxcititblc, and finall) sonic of thein, to placate the mob, began
to c.1nin1 that therc \\/as no architect at all, that the people for w h o m
thc cilthcclri~l was being built lvcrc lllorc i~llportant than a n y t h i n g
c l ~ c , and that c1cr)onc \vas in as good a position as the indcc'urate
draughtsrncn to tlra\v up plans. Oddly cllaugl1, this seemed to in fur -
iate tl1c ~ c o p l e c\cn inorc, for the latter considered i t self-
C\ idriit that the plans, thc great c~igilleers of the past who had faith-
full\ follo\\ctl them, and the carlicr \vork on the cathedral ( the work
clone hcforr ~ h c prcscnt confusion ) all presupposed an a r c h i t e c t -
'Thrv begall to b~rollic violent and c.\.cll c.]aimctd that the engineers
\\ere t lc~troyii i~ their cathctlral and luahillg a liiockery out of the
cnglnvcring profession.
5 :It this point a \cry vocal c.llginecr tried to convince the
pcoplc that- sl~ch tbfforts as hc and thc others were making v1ere really
acts t~rf trclllclitlous hcroisnl and that evpll though the plans of the
architect \vc.rcb impossibly naive and had been l~ofielcssl~ n ~ u d d l e d by
past drali~litsmcn and cligil~rcrs; hc himself cullld lead them t h r o u g h
the ina2.c 111 dircrt rumalrlnication with dead engineers of the past,
thcrehv proving tlic deathless value of cnginecring science. But in-
rtr;al of being considcre(l a rclrristination oC heroic, reforming e n -
gineers of cirri! times. this cngincer aas regarded as a11 epitomal fool
by ~{irtuallr a11 of his colleasues and tlrc great lllass of the people .
011 ly the ~llrrlia of t~ommuni~ t ion featured him, for they quickly dis-
curcrcd t1r;lt pcopIe folIo\~cd his exploits a.itll horror and fascination
even as thcy tlicl the latest scandals of fanlous entertainers.
Tlzc Suicide of Christian Theology in the Sixtics 29
Thus did the great cathedral e\lentually crumble and fall, kill-
ing not only the people who had loved it but also the engineers re-
sponsible for its loss. Pathetically, there wcre a few engineers who,
right up to the nloment of final destruction, still pleaded that the
only hope lay in following rigorously the original plans, that the en-
engineers must bring their stylistic ideas into conformity with the
architect's, and that deviations froin their notions of style did not
constitute genuine errors or contradictions in the plans. But their
voices were scarcely heard anlid the din of engineering teams working
at cross-purposes to each other, and the deafening roar of falling
masonry.
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds
blew, and beat upon that cathedral; and it fell: and great was the
fall of it.
11. Azzatomy of a Suicide
Let us now consider each of the sad stages in the destruction
of the cathedral of theology. By observing the unfortunate decisions
of the theological engineers assigned to the work, we will be able to
understand how the current religious d i l e ~ ~ l n ~ a has arisen. And only
when the religious crisis has been diagnosed can a meaningful remedy
be offered.
The Chn Is Loaded in the 18th Century, Placed against the Head
in the 19th Century, First Fired in the 20th
During the 18th century, when it became painfully evident that
the church was identifying with certain privileged classes and neg-
lecting. others, and revolutionary opposition was directed against un-
just privilege, the church fell under the revolutionary axe. Instead of
seeing that the church had violated her own principles (which firmly
maintained the equality of all men before God) and should be cor-
rected on the basis of these very principles, the intelligensia en-
deavored to establish a counter-religion, naturalistic Deism." Philoso-
phical objectors to historic Christianity arose, who argued that "firm
and unalterable experience" eliminates the miraculous c 1 a i m s of
Christian revelation (David Hume), and "the accidental truths of
history [such as are provided by the historical revelation of Christ]
can never become thc proof of the n e c e s s a r y truths of reason"
(Lessing). Attention was thus shifted to the natural laws of the
external world as proofs of God's existence, and to the moral nature
of man as evidence of God's moral perfection; and biblical revelation
was considered superfluous if not positively misleading. Deists such
as Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason) went to great lengths to dem-
onstrate alleged errors and contradictions in the scriptural text.
In the 19th century12 man's confidence in his abilities, ethical
and otherwise, expanded by leaps and bounds. Reinforced by what
he believed to be the scientifically-established world-view of evolu-
tion, he built metaphysical and idealistic systems to replace Christian
revelation, and pragmatically endeavored to achieve a perfect society
through technology, big business and colonial cxpension. Many t h e ~ -
Iogians-not appreciating that the arguments of Hurne, Lessin% and
Paine had been wcll met even in the 1 8th century," and not listen-
ing to 19th century littkrateurs such as Hawthorne, and
Burckhardt who reminded \Vestern lman of his finitude and presump-
tive selfishness-jumped on the evollltioljary, perfectionistic band-
wagon. They endeavored to re-do the biblical revclntion in the imaee
of the 19th century Zeitgeist, and it did not fit, they made lt
fit-by dismembering the OM Testamcllt texts through ((nn-textu-
ally b a r d ) docuinentary criticism so as to denlonstrate the "evolution
of Jewish rrligion," and by thro\ving o ~ l t the miraclllous in Jesus'
ministry so as to turn hilll illto an ethical example, a kind of ideal
boy scout helping little old ladies across the Sea of Galilec.
Ijuilding on this base, early 20th ccntllry theological Modern-
islll, both Protest;int ancl Catholic, crentccl a totally new religion of
human perfectibility and soci;ll impro\~cmcl1t, to which they attached
tile tem~iaology of traditional Christianity . I 1 These theological en-
gilleers justified thrmsclvcs bv pointing out that ''architectual styles
werr cllilnging illld that tile ldails I G O ~ ' ~ rcselation in tl1c Christ of
the Bible 1 crroncoosly presented stvlistic characteristics a n d
contradicted currrnt styles. In replv, 3 fcI( cliyii~eers noted tha t th i s
did not liialic the plans crrolleolld or contraclictory theli~selves ,
and that it the i l r ~ l ~ i t ~ ~ ~ ' ~ business 10 dra\v plans and t h e
c1l~inccrs' to folio\\ them." But the \.nst majority of t l ~ c ~ l o ~ i a n s Were
too inchriatctl from gulping (lo\\ n tllc hil:ltly \vine of 20th cen-
tur! c.l~lll~rnl ~cll'-col~fidcncc to listcn t() tllc.sc \yilrnillgs. They prc-
flxrrc(l to tal'c 1hc.i1- c~rc from s11c.h aphorisms ;ls of ~~lltosugges-
tionkt k:nli\c C'ouC: "T:\ crjr ( I 3 ) ill C \ .~ la , bCCOllli~lg bctter
,. r
3 r d b r t t ~ r . l'llus \\-:IS the first rolIncl firccl :~g;rinst Christian
tl>co\()g! b! its o\\ n theological prol,oncnts.
I i t i r t b 1 . . Hat-tJl
The I"i~-st \L:orIil \\ 'nr ;rcco~nl~li?;hc~l \\.hat orthodox theologians
had n o t l)ccn irhlc- to (lo: i t 1lcstroyc.d the c\;olutionary, l>rogressivis-
tic contitlcnct. ot' 19th centus! mil11 ; ~ n d of his early 20th c ~ l l t u r y
31rdcrnistic caullti:l-l~art. Illto thr thc~logil-al \.:1cu11111 left b y the col-
I ~ I ~ S L ' of hloclcrnisl~l stcpprcl Kar-1 I3artIl." n:ho rcassertcd the ancient
r s t ~ c i s 111:111 is 1 silllrcr (lcsl,cr;ltr]v ncnlin): thi: clivine
griicc oitcrcd (.:llrirt's dcitth 011 tllt: C:ross il~ld 1,rodai~ilcd ill Holy
Scrjptitrc. 11111' 1i:lrtll i c ~ l l C I I I I I - ~ ~ I C ( . ~ tIl:lt t l l ~ 19th c e n t ~ r y
nc#ati\c critit:isnw of tlic nlisnculuus ~ l a r l of sill\-ntioll and of Scrip-
t(11.c itself (.o~\ltl 11ot hc rcjl-ctctl. I j is t;o]~ltioll \\.as a "cliLllectic" of YCS and O : c thr tr;lnscc:ndcnt (:osllcl i s \:;llid, bu t No, i t can-
not ir justilir(l t I ] \ thr-oiigll i ~ l \ . ~ ~ t i g i l \ i ~ l ~ Of the Rcsur--c-
lion of C:hrist or. t I ~ r o ~ i ~ l l ii1.1 crrorlcss l,ib]ical rc\cll\tion, The Bib-
lical \vritcr*. ;~ssurlccl 1l;rrtll 111 his Cktt,.clz lJugl,mtics, "llaIic bee11 at
felllt in i'\cl!' \ v O Y C ~ , illl(1 )ct il~.cor-(1i11$ to the: > ; , I I I ~ ~ s c ~ j l ~ t l l r a ~ i,itlless,
hcing justit icd ;ind i t 1 g r a ~ ~ illollC, tllC, ]la\.c
the of' C;OCl 111 I I I C I ~ f i \ l I ~ I ) l ( : ;\IIC] (1rrjng ]llllm;~l~ ~ , : o r ( l . l ' l ~ ~
Thc Suicide of Christirin Theology in t l ~ c Sixtirs 3 1
This attempt to have one's theological cake and cat it too was
trenlcndously influential as long as dismal post-IVorld \Var I condi-
tions prevailed; but as soon as secular life begail to rccover after the
war and thc subsequent depression, the inhcrcnt instabilities of
Barth's clialcctic caused it to lose ground. Critics soon observed"
that what Barth gave with one hand he removed with the other:
since, in thc words of our Parablc [ 1'1 ,'"'the only knowledge of the
architect's [God's] ideas came by way of the draughtsman's plans
[thc biblical writers' productions J ," Barth's concession that the Bible
was an erroneous book and that Christ's miraculous work was un-
tcstable removecl all ground for accepting its Gospel message. Dr.
Barth's first aid gave the suicidal patient a tenlporarv lease on life,
but his medical tcchniclue was too self-contradictory to bring about
the necded recovery.
The Hultnzanizian and Post-B~tltmannia~~ Discharge
of More Ammunition
Rudolf Bultmann r c c o g n i z e d full well the instabilities in
Barth's theology, and insisted that if the miraculous claims of the
Bible could not be evidentially sustained (as the 19th century had
asserted and Barth had conceded), then the only answer was to "de-
mythologize" the Bible. One must, said he, eliminate the mythical,
miraculous thought-forms with which the scriptural writers and the
early church clothed the basic Christian message. lVhat was the fun-
damental Gospel? For Bultmann, caught up in Ilcicleggerian existen-
tialism, it mas "authentic self-understanding," which can (and must)
be proclaimed to inoclern man without offensive miraculous trap-
pings.
Barth had cndcavorcd to cliscount the negative efforts of 18th
and 19th century biblical and historical criticism of the Christian
faith by a dialectic affirmation of the transcendent Gospel; however,
his concessions to biblical criticisill put a serious question mark over
all biblical tcachinfi about the transcendent God and the Gospel.
Bultmann, ivhilc rejccting Barth's inconsistency, fcll into a parallel
difficulty: if the Bible is a mythologically corrupted work, what
makes its conception of existential self-authentication valid? Why
not extend d c m y t11 ologizin g t o t h e Christian interpretation of
Existenz?
Moreover, if Barth's flight to a transcendent Gospel put him in
a realm of unvcrifiability, even more so did Bultmann's descent into
existential subjectivity. In theory it scemed superficially plausible
that the scriptural plans for the cathedral of theology "were not in-
tencled to be followed as such, but contact with thcm would increase
the engineer's inner sensitivity to true building methods." But in
practice, "one engineer's inner sensitivity did not produce the same
results as another's, considerable confusion set in, and a tower col-
lapsed" [2] . Just as secular existentialism was unable to "satisfy the
search for authority," so Bultmann's religious existentialism, founded
on the Kierkegaarclian axiom that "truth is subjectivity," necessarily
produced relativistic chaos on the theological scene.
This has been painfully illustrated by the diverse theological 9 9
views of Bultmann's disciples, the so-called "post-Bultmannians.
in their "nemr quest of the historical Jesus." From Fuchs' hyposta-
tizing of language ("the Word interprets us7') to Ott7s rejection of
all objective history ("there are no such things as objectively verifi-
able facts"), one sees the inevitable theologicil outcome of existen-
tial commitments. T h e Jesus of Christian almost totally
disappears in the blending of revelation with the contemporary in-
terpreter of revelation." Theology degenerates to autobiography-
Tittich Fires Another Rozitzd
If the first suicidal shot against theology in the 20th century
was discliarged by thc Modernists (using animunition prepared by
critics of the faith in the 18th and 19th centuries), and if Bultmann
and the Post-Bultniannians fired rounds two and three (after Barthts
first aid proved ineffccti\~e), then the fourth discharge at the victim
was set off 1)): Paul Til1ichB2"
Tillicli properly saw that existential theology confused revela-
tional annrcrs to the human predicament with the ~ r e d i c a m c n t it-
self, and 11c sought to a\.oid this grave difficulty by giving theolog).
an absolutely firni base in o~~tology-ill "Being Itself." Only Being
Itself (or the "Ground of all beingy') is worthy of ultimate conce rn ,
hc ii~ainteiiicd, ;ind all genuine religious statements are symbolic oi
ultiniatc Jjeing. Ko biblical assertions and no historical realitie!
( inc ludin~ Jesus I-lioisclf) can be regarded as absolute; as best the>
"participatc" in 13cing Itself, Ivhile always pointing bcyontl t h e m
helves to ultiniac! .
But Tillicli's appcal to ontolog! achieved little niore than Barth'!
appcal to transccdencc or Ilultmann's appeal to existential experience
As analytical pliilosoyhcr Paul T-:d\vards has show-n. "Tillich's the
ologv is indeed safe from anti-theological arguments, . . . but on ly a
the c ~ p ~ n ~ c of hcilig compatible \\.ith anything \vhate\cr."" Till ich' :
concept of Being ltsclf is technically meaningless because i t is com
pletely formal; no rc-ligious statements about it can be taken l i terally
and thc degree to \\.hich Christian "syii~bols" (even the Christ:
"participate" in i t remains indeterminate. As our Parable says [ 3 1
"It \\.as soon di~covcrcd that i f c\.crything was synibolic and noth
ing literal. no cnginecr could determine the real meaning of any par
ticular clement in the plans."
Tillicti, like other lnajor theologians of the 20th century, un
critically acccptcd 1 essing's claim that eternal truth canllot be icjenti
fled with historical revelation, and likewise bought tile negative bib
lical criticirli~ of thc 19th century. Thus he eliminated the possibil
i t ) of his making concrete and ~~erifiable statelllents about ~~d 0
about IIis relation to the \corld. As George TaVard noted
"Tillich has si~npl!~ ]lot been radical enough in criticizing libera
thcnlop. He has 110t seen that the historians \rho doubt
*.
The S~iici t lc of Christirrn Tlzcolog): in the Sixties
- -.
-
3 3
of the [biblical] records have failed to establish their point. Here,
Paul Tillich remains a child of his generation, a victim of the his-
toricism of the last cen t~ ry . " '~
T h e Last TIPO Chambers Emptied by the Secular and
Death-of-God Theologians of the Sixties
Two barrels of the six-shooter were left unfired when Tillich
ceased his labors, and as the theolog!cal victim, already mortally
wounded, reeled back and forth on Steinberg's teeter-totter, the "sec-
ular" and "God-is-dead" theologians of our decade took careful ainl
and finished him off. They have yet to realize that as a result they
themsclves are now in what Christian poet Charles \'Irilliams referred
to as "the spectral grave and thc endless falling."2'
No one should have been surprised at the secular and theo-
thanatological turn of contemporary theology: the way had been
fully prepared." Death-of-God theologian Paul Van Buren, 40 had
taken his doctorate under Barth, woke up one morning to the realiza-
tion that if God ere indeed the transcendent "I-Ioly Other" that
Barth said He was-unverifiable in revelational history and subject
only to the ackno\vledgn~ent of unsupported faith- thcn God was
in fact dead; God-language no longer had any meaningful referent.
Thomas J. J. Altizer followed out Tillich's basic "Protestant prin-
ciple"-that the ultimacy of all religious assertions must be negated
in order to prevent non-ultimate concerns from triumld~ing-and
applied the principle rigorously to Being Itself, thus negating the
very idea of God .'"
And why have the "secular theologians" such as Robinson,
Vidler,2%nd Pike repristinatcd the old liberal huinanisim that finds
God where man's social action takes placc? Simply because the inter-
mediate stages of 20th century the01ogy~Barthian Nco-Orthodoxy,
Bultmannian and Post-Bultmannian existentialism, and Tillichian
ontology-having accepted the critical approach to revelation main-
tained by the old Modernism, were unable to offer any stablc alterna-
tives to humanistic liberalism. Once the reliability of God's revelation
in the historical Christ of Scripture is put in question, as it was in
18th and 19th century thought, secular theology is the only consis-
tent possibility : in rejecting God's revelation, mail puts himself in
God's placc; now all that is rcquired is to work out the in~plications
of man's centrality. Naturally, God will take a back seat or be rede-
fined in terms of man's interests; naturally, human social action will
become all-important; naturally (as in the theology of death-of-God
advocate IITilliam Hamilton), Jesus will be transmuted into a human-
istic "place to be" and "revelation" will now be found in sexual sat-
isfaction and the amelioration of the ills of s~c ie ty .~ '
Ironically, however, the secular focusing of theology has not in
any sense accomplished what its proponents envisaged. Instead of
church life reviving through concentration on the humanistic, in-
difference or out-and-out antagonism has been manifested. Church
interest in Ei~gland is still approacllillg thc vanishin:: 11oillt in ~ p i
of the efforts of Cai~lbriclge radicals and thc Rishol? of n'oolwi(
to outclo each other in a "more heretical than thou" contest; in t1
United States, theological seminary cnrollinents in noll-cvan~elic
institutions have continued their ste;lcly one-half percellt dcclille ea(
year.la Young people seeking careers and older people seeking Inen
ingful community associatiolls have recognized what O U $ ~ to ha
been obvious to the theologians: if Christian faith reduces to hullla
istic values, then why bother with ~ h u r c h nrcmbcrship or churl
careers? T h e pact corps, social work, psychiatry, all(] the Rota
offer more meaningful opportunities for secr~lar association and sel
ice--and they are not debilitated by a conccptu;ll vocab~ l l a r~ whi'
even their own leaders do not take seriously. As for conllrlitt
cllrlrch menibcrs, they look at the secular thcolooian as little nIc
than a betrayer; in the words of our Parable 1.4 1 : They [the PeoI
who desircd to worship in the cathedra].] begair to become violc
and even claimed that the engineers were destroying their cathedl
and ~naking u n~ockcry out of thc engineering profession." T h e f a
urc of the radic;il theologians' efforts to lllake the church ''releva1
tllro~igh secularis~n suggest that there illight ilct~,ally be some mer i t
that old teaching, "Fle \\lllo \vould save his life shall lose it."
One of the most tragic enairlplcs ill the current revival of 1
c r d tl1('0)0gy is thilt of I3ishop James Pikc 1 5 1 , whose theologic
dc\-olutioli li;~s taken him fnrthcr i~nd farther left since hc enter
I'rotcstantism at the point of an unstable Barthian theology. A t t
tin~c. the 13jsIrol1's n:ol-k. \%lJ,nt Is ?'his T r e t l s L l r e , was publisl~ccl
1966, ?lad already come to displa\; utter arbitrariness in accept i
and rejectincl I)iblicill miitcrials in &cord with 11;s relieic
n. prcfcrcnces; In o srries of critical ;\stic.lcs on his tllcology publish
that sanlcb yc;~r- 1 c,itc.d a IILIIII~)CI- of ~ ' ~ a 1 1 ~ ~ ) l ~ ~ slid tlrc\\r conclusic
from tlicn~ :
I f ' ~\ .c can trust no ~-e\:clation of God fullv, their I L : ~ OIL?-sell
I?ec.ou~c: the o ~ r l ! . retilninilrg starr&,.d of jzi;jcS,rlerlf. This is 13
cisc.l! the \\.ith thi. Uishol, of C;l]ifarnia, and t\le ;\rl,itrz
IIcss of his cntirc thcolog~ is conscqucnce. )Ie picks a
C'l~ooscs Scrillture ;~ccording to his interests. 'rhus, as \ve h;
sccll. 1 1 ~ ac,ccljts the iir-st cl:rusc of john 14: 6 , \vllilc rc.jccti
tllc' si.c(in(l. iIn(l LISCS the iipo'r\;pllal ] 1 ~ ) ~ ~ ~ to lo(]it]r to ;,rgue .
;I loose sczual mor;llit),, while 'rricctiny the alln,lutcncss of 1
1'1.11 C:onlnl;~ndmc~,~r found ill canonical Scriptorc. In ''H,
.\I!' Jlilld Hiis (:llangcd." ht, insists on wine for ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ l ~
tllc' xn)olld that " J C S L I \ rlc\,er drank grape juice,'' !,ct in E7hnt
~ ' ~ l i ~ ~ 7 f - ~ ~ ~ l l r ~ frc ;~ppro\ingl! rites the lron-C:,llristian
1 1 1 ' S . . (tllirrl crnturv>, nllo said of Jeslls' llealing of 1
( 1 ciclnoniilc. f ict i t ious, lIllt SenL,inc th
1 t i c ( 1 . 9 . Jn A Ti,)le for Ch ,-istiart cc
t i o r I 1-cjccts r 1 : 5 - , i l l i t cOntr 1- ac ~ c t i o n
0111. I.ortl's tc . ;r~hjl>~" 9). 136:.
Thc Stricirlr of C:hristirtn Tlzcology in tlzc Sixtics 3 5
- -. -
The more one reads thc bishop, the more the conviction
grows that in dispensing with all "earthen vessels," he has in-
evitably ended up with the earthen vessel of his own judg-
ment. . . . Pike's adventurous theological carcer has made hiill
the sole arbiter of the divine, whose increasing vagueness as
the "Ground of all being" opens the floodgates to semantic con-
fusion, to creedal double-think, and to moral anarc l~y .~"
This year, wit11 the appcarancc of I f This Be Heresy and the re-
ports of the Ford-Pike skances, the evident deterioration has pro-
ceeded even farther. In sublime disregard of the basic Christian
affirmations concerning sin, hell, judgrncnt, redemption, and resur-
rection, the Bishop cncleavors to provide "empirical" evidence for
human survi~ral after death bv way of psychic phenomena and psi-
research. As in thc 18th century, when alongside a Voltaire stoocl
a Cagliostro, rationalisin has shown its other face, superstition. By
"superstition" \Ire do not mean ESP investigations as such, for this
is a legitimate field of inquiry; nor do we criticize the Bishop's laud-
able appreciation of empirical method. \\/hat is sad is the extent to
which he, likc the 18th and 19th century critics of the Bible, con-
sistently confuses empirical investigation with unrecognized meta-
physical and relk oious commitments.
The data collected by paraps)~chological experts over the years
has been cxcccdin$p impressive; only prejudicial blindness can ig-
nore rcsearch compilations such as those by Sidgwicli, Gurney, Myers,
and Tyrrell, or the work carried on by Professor Rhinc.:l"~ut one
cannot stress too emphatically that the specialists ilz this area have not
been able to establish hzirrznlz survival or a~zy other religious doctrine
on the basis of their data. Thus, after sctting out the best cviclence
the ESP field offers, Garclner Riurphy-by all odds one of the fore-
most American students in this field-givcs this chilling personal
testimony: "Trained as a psychologist, and now in my sixties, I do
not actually anticipate finding n~ y s e 1 f in existence after physical
death.""' And in concluding a detailed examination of the entirc
parapsychological field, Castellan quotes another French expert,
Robcrt Amaclou, ancl perccptively comn~ents on his judgment:
"I1 v a un inlnlense dicalage entre la connaissance exacte
quc nous possiclons de ccs phdnomkncs et les suppositions qu'
jmpliquent les hypothCses. . . Nous ignorons trop les circon-
stances clui entourent I'apparition des faits psi pour pouvoir
Cdifier une thkoric satisfaisantc de ces ph&nomknes, immbdiate-
men t vkrifiable pare l'expkriencc." Cette remarque se degage
d'ellc-ineme au terme de notrc 6tude. L,es vkritables in6ta-
psychistes n'ont pu poser aucune conclusion scien tifique : toute
conclusion est nlanifestemcnt empreinte cle m 6 t a p h y s i q ~ e . ~ ~
This is the point : Pike's own metaphysic-and, in light of the
close connection between psi phenomena and the unconscious, doubt-
less his personal drive toward wish-fulfilment as well-creates the
"survival" interpretation he places on ~ ~ ~ c h i c data. \Vhy not other
contexts of interpretation? In the Christian world-view, there are
other spiritual powers to be reckoned with besides God and the mem-
bers of the Church Triumphant.'"\Yrote B. Vauyhan in his fore-
word to a classic work by a noted British psychical investigator:
"There is a great deal to say against Spiritism, hut no t nluch that 1
know of for it. But I shall be reminded that i t has disproved the
doctrine for materialism and proved the immortality of man. Not
SO; it may bavc only proved the immortality of demons.""' h soberd
ing point, and one reinforced by the most iniporta~lt German theo-
logical work published on the subject in this century: Kurt Koch's
Seelrorge 7c1ld Okkaltisrn~r, where the author scientifically tabulates
the "frequency-ratio'' of consequences o,nnected wit11 spiritualist ac-
tivity on the part of pr~rtitioners (mediums, ctc.) and followers;
these include psychoses, horrible death-bcd scenes, suicides, apoplexy 7
warping and distortion of character, and fear-clel~sions 7
il~diBcreilcc or positirle hostilitv to Scripture and pr;lycr, and obdu-
racy (Verkrnrrr~,fuu~) against christ and God."
"TcSt the sprits" cautions the Christian revelation, but f o r
~ i sho] , Pike a n d the rildical tlleology r~of the Sixties, testing of theo-
logical juilgmcnts has become impossible. If the current issue of 7 y
~ ' e u f s ~ r ~ e e k i i ' is riglt that "r\nything Gocs" in our "Permissi\rc Society
today. thcn theolog! has Ijecon~e rt.le\rnnt beyond the rvildcst d r e a m s
Of i t \ currcn t proponents: n(,\v "anvthinv oocs" rcligiou~lv as well -
b.t' And this of caul-rc ;~ppIies to practical ecumo,iwl blueprints
thcl horiton. s~lt l i as tlw Rlake-Pikc proposal. 111 a p-evailing a t -
n l o s p l ~ ~ of dortrin:~l \ agar). \\ ith no clear standartls of theological
truth crror ant1 \\ ith thc jiial$lity to conrlcnln hcq-es!. bccause fex.c-
, - krlo\\ \\.l~at o~.thotlo~! is, churcI1 unjolls based on pictj , s e n t i m e n t ,
lo\c 0s ol-!:;Init,ltlon. or t l ~ c 5implc urge for togcthcrllcss become not
on]! I l \ r . p\\ibilitic\ but appallin6 actoalitics. ,qnd thc result is a
stca((\ d t \ c ~ J ~ ~ ; i t i o n nt tllc c.nlnngc of tllc (;ospel.
111. ; \Io~Ic(t I'roposnl for rr I