not step over into the atheism they espouse? Dr. Hamil ton was asked this question. He said that he retained the “ Christian” image because “ there is something there in [Jesus’] words, his life, his way with others, his death, that I do not find elsewhere. . . .” Perhaps we are supposed to be impressed that such a-theologians hold onto Jesus even though they reject God. We are not! We share the poignant designation given of men by Professor Daniel Day Williams of Union Theological Seminary. He said they believe “ there is no God, and Jesus is his only begotten son.” Of course, in reality, the Jesus the death of God theolo gians hold to is not the Christ of the Bible. He is, as Dr. Altizer hints, only a somewhat Nietzschian being who apparently also believed—or should have believed —that his Heavenly Father was dead. The whole idea is absurd from the standpoint of biblical Christianity. Dialog magazine believes “ it is wholesome for the ology that it has come around to debating an ultimate question.” Granted, theologians are bound to discuss various issues which go to make up theology. But we consider the casting of doubts on God’s very existence and still seeking to retain the guise of “ Christian” to be deplorable and believe that such theologians have hit an all-time low. Of course, as we have said, this viewpoint is the inevitable ultimate of the developing group of philosophers who have repeatedly cast sus picion and denial on Scripture, the Christ of Scripture, the Spirit of God and other themes which constitute the heart of Christianity. Who is left then but the eternal God Himself to be the last target of their rebellion? If man would enthrone himself—something he has consistently been trying to do since his fall at the beginning of time, he must finally and completely dethrone God. Lucifer tried this before time began: “ I will be like God!” he said. Adam did the same thing when, in essence, he said, “ I will do what I want to do when I want to do it!” It is only natural to expect that our age should culminate in a vicious attempt to re place God. Finite man may dislike capitulating to an infinite being he cannot see or know in a tangible manner. But he certainly should have learned by this time that hu mans, when they have sought to run things apart from the God they try to deny, have turned in a rather poor performance. The death of God theologians will find this out too. For writing God out of the script of existence is clearly not going to be the answer to the human dilemma. Unfortunately, before these men have learned their lesson, they will have infected with their poisonous ideas a whole host of pseudo-sophisticated in tellectuals who are “ ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
God-is-Dead theologians are more specific. German pro fessor Herbert Braun holds that “ the ancient picture of God who exists beyond this world and breaks into it from the outside cannot seriously be accepted by modem man.” “ Instead of trying to put God back into human life, the Christian should welcome the total secularization of the modem world.” That is, let's acknowledge God’s death, attend His funeral and then try to pick up the pieces. For, Dr. Altizer suggests, God’s demise is basic ally a redemptive act. And, by this, he doesn’t refer to the death of God’s Son on Calvary either. He means the abandonment of God in our Christian thought. As his co-theomortician, Dr. William Hamilton of Colgate Rochester Divinity School says, the Christian must not be thought of as a redeemed sinner, but as a person “ beside his neighbor, beside the enemy, at the disposal of the man in need.” Christ is not a person or an object to these men from the Death of God school. He is a “ place to be.” The Christian who is involved in racial struggles or any of the vital activities of the secular world is “ in Christ.” The Christian can very well get along without God, even though he retains Jesus in his thinking—a human Jesus, of course. The death of God school was inevitable. The existen tial radicals such as Sartre, Camus and Co. reflect the earlier “ God is dead” philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. Contemporary theologians, therefore, are not really off ering a new, tasty menu in their attempt to have a Christianity without God. They are just serving the forbidden fruit which came from the cut-rate can labeled Honest to God which Robinson opened. Altizer envisions the imminent doom of Christen dom—a transition into a wholly secularized world. God is but an idol constructed by our culture and no longer relevant to a secularized society. The only way for Christians to resurrect God is for the church to become secular enough in thought to take its place in society, ministering to the cultural needs of today. Even Jesus, we are told, was interested essentially in guiding men to a secular salvation. The rejection of God leads to the acceptance of the world. Ironically, this is true. But the advocates of the death of God school look upon it as a worthy achievement rather than a sad commen tary on a decadent spirituality. With everything else appearing in avant-garde garb today, it was only a matter of time before theology would follow suit and try to appear “way out.” In vir tually every field, former standards are being thrown over and the angry young rebels with radical view points are spewing them out, in an endeavor to chal lenge the status q u o . Actually, one wonders why these God-less men still cling to Christianity; why they do
17
JANUARY, 1966
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs