HOW d e a d
IS G o d ?
J u s t
by Charles L. Feinberg, Th.D. Ph.D.
explained how this is to be achieved. The pitfall to avoid, it is claimed, is to treat theology in the spirit and manner in which it is done in theological semi naries. Is it equally applicable to inquire whether medicine is to be treated out of the norms o f the medical school, and law without the confines of law schools and courts? It is beside the point at the moment to conceive of the universe as theo- centric. Yet the new approach is applauded for its frank criticism of “ outmoded, inadequate and an thropomorphic representations of the Deity” ( “God Without God” by Gabriel Vahanian in The Chris tian Century, June 9, 1965, p. 745). Confidently it is affirmed that subsequent to the elimination of God, attempts are developing a “morality without sin” through “modem political philosophy” along with “ atheistic humanism and secularism” (loc. cit.). Conscious effort is supposed to be exerted to avoid atheism, as well as to tone down the undue emphasis on God’s immanence to the detriment of the truth of His transcendence. It would be well at this point to relate present trends to their historical background. The denial o f God results in some strange fellow travelers: Marx, Freud, Camus, Sartre, and Heidegger (the last three being atheistic existenialists). The bald statement “God is dead” is as old as Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, the Germany philosopher (1844-1900). Nietzsche put his blasphemy in the mouth o f an insane man. The new element injected today is that men are using the same slogan and cliche, but adamantly proclaim themselves Chris tian. The words are mouthed by leaders o f the church and those who are training the new gen eration of preachers. Altizer, of whom more later, brazenly speaks of God as “ Satan” ( “Whither The ology,” Christianity Today, December 17, 1965,
. . ye turned unto God from idols, to serve a (I Thess. 1:9). “But the Spirit saith expressly, that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of de mons . . ” (I Tim. 4 :1 ). I N A generation which has for long majored in superlatives ( “ the most,” “ the greatest” ) and the ridiculous, the pendulum has finally swung to the extreme of the ludicrous and the blasphemous. Men are seriously discussing, debating, and dilat ing on “ the death o f God.” Reactions vary from unconcealed wrath to disgust to incriminations and counterincriminations. And yet the play goes on. Some are wondering whether we are to have in the future theological seminaries or necrological ceme teries. No one will deny the timeliness of the theme or the widespread interest it has aroused. Recently on a national telecast o f the news viewers were wit nesses of a litany and requiem wherein the choir practically shouted the blasphemous catchwords of “ Christian atheism” with repeated and monotonous emphasis on the words “God is dead.” To speak of “ Christian atheism” is equivalent to discussing “ Satanic godliness” or “ godly demonism.” Why should words of known and accepted connotation be emptied without warrant, o f both logic and meaning? Men are speaking now of “God Without God,” a contradiction on the surface of it, also “ the image of a man without image” and even “ a being with out being.” All adds up to an admitted theological impasse. Along with the loss of the sense of God has come, of course, the loss of the concept o f sin. Instead of theology the discussions center now on “ atheology.” Final and absolute faith is supposed to be beyond atheism and nihilism. It is not clearly living and true God . .
14
THE KING'S BUSINESS
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker