Supreme Being from the universe. Men who lay claim to theological orientation are prepared to satisfy themselves with a complete secularization of modem life. One is driven to agree that “ each theologian or group o f theologians seems to be trying to be a bit more brash than his predeces sors” (H. H. Ehrenstein, “Attending God’s Fu neral,” The King’s Business, January, 1966, p. 16). Our day is being characterized as not only post- Christian, but even post-God. The little boy’s prayer is now neither humorous nor appreciated: “And, dear Lord, do take good care of Yourself; because if anything happens to You, we are sunk.” Non-orthodox evaluations of these positions have been as severe as those of conservative per suasion. Hear the judgment: “ The death-of-God theologians are those who have rather uncritically bought one of our age’s analytic tools; they are men who witness to the meaning of secularity out of too small a matrix — their own limited experi ence” (The Christian Century, December 1, 1965, p. 1467). Theologians like Gordon Kaufman of Harvard Divinity School and Paul Tillich, of whom more later, have seen something to commend in these new theological positions, if for no other reason than that there is a supposedly healthy abandon ment of old and outworn religious symbolism. Min isters generally have been quick to discern that, according to the new concepts, Christianity be comes nothing more than a type o f humanism tinged with an ethic patterned after Jesus. The theologians o f this camp freely acknowledge that at the moment they have no cohesive theology. But it is pertinent to ask why more men who do not take this theological position (stated by Altizer, Hamilton, Van Buren, and others) are so little exercised over the turn of events ? As a whole, few theologians are prepared to take seriously the conclusions of the non-God theologians. It should be stated that even those holding this non-God view do not agree among themselves. But why no heresy trials? Academic freedom? Lack of deep- seated conviction on the most basic of issues? Who can point to one reason? It could be the combina tion of several factors. Theology has been shifting seriously; moorings have been dangerously loosed; philosophy likes to feel it has the place o f pre eminence and has the deciding voice; the voice of Scripture smacks too much o f obscurantism and
retrogression when all must be, to be considered respectable, either neo-orthodox, neo-liberal, neo evangelical, or just plain neologistical. The name of Tillich has been repeatedly men tioned in discussions of the new theology, and this treatment would be lacking if it did not indicate something of his relationship to the young men of the movement. Because Tillich is considered so unorthodox, some prefer to classify him as a phi losopher rather than as a theologian. Born in a Lutheran minister’s home, he decided in his teens to occupy himself with philosophy through the avenue of the Lutheran ministry. His experience in World War I left him in doubt that man could ever comprehend the essence of his existence. Building on Nietzsche’s dictum ( “God is dead” ), he emerged from idealism to realism, working out blueprints with like-minded thinkers for a “ re ligious socialism” (Time, October 29, 1965, pp. 80- 82). The nightmare of Hitlerism resulted in his ac ceptance of a post at Union Seminary at New York. At first his positions were little understood, but in the post-war years he gained in stature. From Union he went to Harvard where as a university professor he lectured to large and appreciative groups of students. Life as it is was the heart of his theological system. He was an existential phi losopher. On basic issues he differed from other theologians such as Barth. Tillich’s key to salva tion was courage, that is, the courage to be over against the dread possibility of non-existence or non-being. Speaking often of “modern idolatries,” he firmly maintained that “ no truth o f faith is ultimate.” This is supposed to be the Protestant principle at work. God and Christ are only sym bols for realities that are unknowable. All doctrines are merely symbolic. For Tillich the spiritual com munity could well incorporate even atheists and pagans. Tillich, finally at the University of Chicago, seemed to be losing ground and influence to Bult- mann and Bonhoeffer. Tillich might view God sym bolically, but the “death of God” innovators fa vored abandonment even of this symbolical view point. This was too much for Tillich to follow; it was simply carrying matters too far. But the neologists were not to be denied; they pay tribute to Tillich as the starting point of their thinking. If encouragement is needed in this hour, let the
16
THE KING'S BUSINESS
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker