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 LITERATURE, 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

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 Ic~,c,mc so I)acJ that il radic;,lI i.ctllinl;ing 01' the whole thecilo~ic;~l cntcrpriscl II:,s l~ccome mandator).

? 7

1 IIC' I ~ J ) c ' \ ;11011g \ \~l i jcI~ t11~'ologi~aI ~C:C>O\:CT\; can IIC made have been ourlincd ir l ollr I'sr:lblc \!'bile the cathedral W;IS tottering o n tile brink of coll;~lrrr. "thcre \vrre n fc\ \ engineers who, right u p to the illomc~~t ol' l i ~ i i l l (lotrurtion, still plcad&l that thc only hope lay in o r r o r o i ~ s v tlic original plai~s, that the ellginecrs m u s t briny tlicir st\listic ideas into conforn~i t~ rrith the ar

?'hc Suicide of Clrristian Theology in tlzc Sixtics 3 7

clestroyed themselves by their unnecessary and unwarranted destruc- tion of biblical revelation, on which all sound theology is based. The only hope for a resurrected theology lies in a reco~~ery of confidence in the historical Christ and in the Scriptures Iic stamped with ap- proval as God's \Yard.

The Divi~ze Christ of History Neither rejection of the historicity of a Divine Christ, nor the

fear of negative conscque~lccs if the question of His Divinity is sub- jected to historical investigation, can in any sense be justified- though such attitudes have characterized all mainline Protestant theological positions in the 20th century. Contemporary thcology has uncritically followed the 18th century dicta that history is too un- certain to ground faith (Lessing's ditch) and that universal cxper- ience rules out the n~iraculous (Hume). But no one is obligated to accept Hun~e's circular argument (the very existence of evidential claims for Christ's miraclcs shows that no alleged "universality of experience" can eliminate ~lliraclc claims a y r i ~ r i ) " ~ nor can anj70ne legitimatelv depreciate history as the groui~d for religious faith (since history is but past experience, and our every decision, religious or non-religious, involves the weighing of experiei~tial evidence and the comnlitillent of faith to the implications of empirical data)." More- over, conteml~orary theology is in no way required to carve up the biblical records by 19th century docunlentary methods that are in fact rooted in discredited evolutionary presuppositions and subjec- tivistic analytical techniques; in actuality, these methods have been tried and found wanting in other fields (Grcco-Roinan and ancient Near Eastern studies, for cxan~ple) . '~ Concerning the destructive use of form-cri ticism on the New Tcsta~ncilt documents, C. S. Lewis argued with tre~nendous cogency just before his death that a life- tiinc of ~vork on comparative litcrary questions had showed him the utter fallacy of the method: "The 'assured results of modern scholar- ship,' as to the way in which an old book was \vritten, are 'assured,' we may concludc, only because the men who know the facts are dead and can't blow the gaff."" . ,

The historical value of the New Testament records about Christ is, when considered from the objective standpoint of textual scholar- ship, nothing less than stellar. Writes Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, for- merly director and principal librarian of the British Museunl : "The interval . . . between the dates of original con~position and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has nou7 been removed. Both the autherzticity and the gerleral integrity of the books of the New Testament may bc regarded as finally e~tab l i shed ."~~

And in thesc attested historical docunlcnts the Divine claims of Jesus Christ and the Resurrection by which He validated those claims are set forth in the most lucid and persuasive terms. J. V. IJangmeatl Casserlcy perceptively noted in his 195 1 Maurice Lectures

at King's College, London, that the evidence for the Resurrection is "like a knife pointed at the throat of the irreligious n~an."" Attempts like Schonfikld's to explain it away invariably demand more faith than the Resurrection itself, for they fly squarely in the face of the Prl- inary-source rnaterial . 'Vhe saving events of the Christian ~ o s l ? ~ ' are as factually sound today as they ever were, in spite of theological opinions to the contrary. Well ought we to ~ o n d e r Ignatius of Antioch's words, written on his way to martyrdom under the Em- peror Trajan (CQ. A.D. 107): Christ "suffered all these things for Our sakes, that we might attain salvation, and He truly suffered even as also He truly raised Himself up, not, as some faithless persons say, that his Passioil was a matter of mere semblance, whereas i t is they who are mere semblance. Things will assuredlv turn out for them In accordance with their opinions; they will find themselves disembodied ancl phantasn~al."~'

The Holy Scriptures The historical validation of a Divine Christ leads to the estab-

M-~mcnt of the Script~lres as Divine revelation. \Vhen one exanlines, purely on historical grounds, the attitude of Jesus toward the Old Testanlent, one fitals that He regarcled it as no less than God's re- \rc;~led \Vortl. His attitude is one of total trust: He quotes au thor i ta - tively from thc most obscure corners of the Old Testament; He makes no attcnlpt to distinguish "religious1' or truth from veracity in historical or ''sccolar" matters; an(] never (foes He subject t he Old Tcstamcnt to criticisni. Far from rebuking the devil himself for (llloti11p Scripture, Jcsus out-quotes ),in,, elnployinp the s igni f icant nssertioll that m a n Ii,,rs "by every lvOrd P r O C C ~ d ~ out of the 111outh of Gocl."'"

!\s cbvc.n ri~tlical b i b 1 i c ;I 1 critics such as Bultmann, H. I - Caclbilry. and F. \ical data, and nloral f i 1 1 I l l i ]jut these now be- c(llllI: clllclfi(lll\ ( 1 1 i l 1 t r t 1 t i o 1 , not "( ;lllthority, for chr i s t ~ i ~ - %'lf il;,r 3cttlfll tllr i l~ l t l l ( ) r i t \ . O ~ ~ C C and for flis to t l ~ ' 1 0 t cllilr.~cter of tlrc lvllole of ~~~i~~~~~~ out- n r i ~ l l 3 i l l l ~ c\,cr! C ( I I I I I ~ T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ I ~ C I ) I frnll, paltiCLllar c]ificulties -

7

T h e Sriici~Ie o f Christin~z Thcologf in thc Sixtics 3 9

i t now becomes the task of the faithful biblical interpreter, as he confronts problem passages, to seek effective solutions consistent with the high view of the Bible's authority held by the Incarnate Lord Himself . 4 9

Resurrection and Life The keystone of a resurrected theology is, then, an unqualified

acceptance of the resurrected Christ. His historical Resurrection was the focal point of early Christian witness (and the early Chris- tians were close enough to the events to know what had and what had not happeilcd). Only when modern theology ceases its equiv- ocation on the issue of the reality of the Resurrection will it find its way to a Divine Christ and to a fully authoritative Scripture. John Updike, in "Seven Stanzes at Easter," speaks directly to contemporary theology in this regard : 5 0

Make no mistake: if He rose at all it was as His body. if the cells' dissolution did not reverse, the molecules

reknit, the amino acids rekindle, the Church will fall.

It was not as the flowers, each soft Spring recurrent; it was not as His Spirit in the mouths and fuddled

eyes of the eleven apostles; it was as His flesh : ours.

The same hinged thumbs and toes, the sanle valved heart that-pierced-died, withered, paused, and then

regathered out of enduring Might new strength to enclose.

Let us not illock God with metaphor, analogy, sidestepping, transcendence; making of the event a parable, a sign painted in the

faded credulity of earlier ages : let us walk through the door.

The stone is rollccl back, not papier-machb not stonc in a story, but the vast rock of materiality that in the slow

grinding of time will eclipse for each of us the wick light of clay.

And if we will have an angel at the tomb, make it a real angel, weighty with Max Planck's quanta, vivid with hair,

opaque in the dawn light, robed in real linen spun on a definite loom.

Let us not seek to make it less monstrous, for our own convenience, our own sense of beauty lest, awakened in one unthinkable hour, we are

embarrassed by the miracIe, anil crushed by remonstrance.

Bishop Pike is right to seek cnlpirical grounding for faith; he is wrong in looking to ambiguous psi-experiences for that experierl- tial base, when he could find it where Christians from earliest days to modern times have met it: in the Rcsurrcction of Christ. pa"' stated the issue precisely: "If Christ ,$.as not raised, your f a i t h is vain and you arc still in your sins. Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. If our hope in Christ is linlitcd to this ]if e , WC are of all Inen most miserable. But Christ has been raised the d e d - the firstfruits of those that slept."jl T h e evidence that

today can live forever is available where it has been for t w c 1 l t ) centuries: a t thc crnpty tolnb. "1 am the &snrrection and the lifc7 said Christ. "He who bclicvcs in lllc, though he mere dead, yet shal

litre. ilrld erlcr~lonc rvho lives and believes in me shall never die 13clic.1.cst t]lou tl1i(;?"'?

I\'. I'trl-nble of Hope B?i W a y of Co~rrlz~sio~2 Thi* prescntation bcgm rvith trvo disquieting parables: George

Y

hloon. rcflrrting thc contcmpornrv secular dilemma, and the parab1 of tllc Fnpincvn, mapping the decline and fall of 20 th century thee lo$ic:~l solutions to thc \ccular pwdicalllellt. Sad to say, u n c c r t a i l l t and loas of 11lciming in thc srclll;lr realm pro\lccl to be inore tha mntchcd 1)) i agucncss a n d indcfinitencss in theology. ' ' l ?hy" ic ia~ - the accul:~rlst could 1 a to tudav's tlieologin~i, "he;~l thyself !"

\\'c 1 1 i 1 1 ~ bccn at pains to shon that llcnling is in fact ; ivailabl -in ~ o n t a ~ t ulth thc Cross, the E~nptv Tomb, and the I-Ioly Scril ture. Tlwrc A sol10 foundation cxists for t l ~ ~ o l o ~ y , l~crsona l f n i t 1 dlltl s p l r l t u , i l rcncnnl. I n starh contrast to the p ~ r a b l ~ ~ 'tvitll \ ~ h i c t l l i z eqSll! t)c '~: i r l . Il\tcn tlo\\ to J prab lc told in the 7tJ1 c e n t u r y k .in ad11wr of hl11g 1Idr11n of \orthumbria to shorn tllc 1;ing t h e \x7i don1 of ;lcccbl)tinq tllc Chrlstldn faith:

. r ison w i t O Ling, this prcsrnt lifc of men on earth. in cornpal thc tin)(> th:lt is unhtroa,n to us. sccms to 111c as if ).ou were sj ling a t :I txlncluet \ \ i th \lour ealdormen and thanes in the \ ~ ~ i x 1 t 4 l i r t u * \ \ i t 11 tllc fire i)urning and the i~all a.anlled, a n d outs ic thr 5li)rrns of a , i ~ r t e r rain or snon \I-ere mqing; and there shou: - i r s i f t flying through t6e hall, coming in 1 orlc dlr~l- i ln~l i l , ing out t ' l~rou~h another. During the t i n 3 1 c is in \ ic lc i t i b not touched by thc storm of \,inter; but , t h a t l j rlc I I I ~ I ~ I C I I I ( IUICI having passcd, i t soon r e t u n s from \ r ? i n t 4 i ) ; ~ h to \r,intcr i ~ ~ a i l i , 2nd is Inst to sight. So this 1-i *ri81irs I l h ~ ;I short in tcrval; ivhat may have gone before or wh 1 1 1 ~ + \ ( . O I ~ ~ T ~ f t c r i t , \VP do 1101 know. Therefore, if this ile

teaching has brougllt an! grrater ccrtaillt?, i t scclllr littln(: t h a t it should be follor\ed."

T h e new t~eaching did indeed bring "greater certnint)>I': in cont1:;lst to the uncertainties of co~ltcnlporsr) ~ p e c u l ~ t i ~ ~ , rcliSiolls and secular. i t continues to brillg that. certainty to ctver\l \\;ho, in his s\\.ift flight through the 11nll of this ~vor ld , gives lljmsclf to the Christ \\-I10 gave His life for thc. siris of 11s all. LinrenlittinS1v ljc seeks us, offerinq , , a nertaintv and a peace available I I ~ \ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~n Auden's nzords a n d 11.c closc~ rvi th then1 : :;"

Fro111 110 JICCCSS~~!; [ H c ] Condescended to csist 311d to S L I ~ T C I - death Xncl, scorned on a scaffold, cnsol1ccd in His ]ifc T h c hulllan household. 111 our anguish \vc struggle 'To cludc: Him, to 1ic to H i ~ n , yet His lo\c obserl-cs Elis appalling promisc; His As 11.c l~anclcr and n.ecp is \\;it11 us to the encl.

Neu. Il'ork: Simon nntl Sch~rster . 1967. See hlontgomcry. "The Ivcmbcr 1 0 . 1 9 6 7 . Cf. the c ~ c e l l c n t critical rc\.ic\\. of t h e film in the Frcrich nc\vsrnag:rzinc L'Expl -osc , 8-14 r r l i ~ i , 1 9 6 7 . Thi, f ; ~ b l c is inc1~1dt.d iu Fcif'fcr's I'r~ssiorlcllil arzrl Othcr ,Storic.s (Xc\v \.ark: S c \ v tllneric'tn Lil-)rrtry Signct Uooks, 1964). See 3lontgolncry. " T h e Gospel ;\ccording to LSD," C'lzrixtirrnit? 'I'ollu?., J u l \ 8 . 1 9 6 6 . I l r~~pcr ' s . >lay, 1065. Cf . Alontgoinery, C:ri,is in I.tctlzcrtl~z 7'llcology ( 2 vcrls.; Grancl Ijapids. Alichigan: Bakcr Book I-lousc, 1967) . Vol. 1 , espccinlly c h ; ~ p . i i , Iamcs W i l l i a ~ n \C'nrden, "The Pnrtrayal of the Protct;t;\nt 3ti1iistcr in Amrrican Motion l'icturcs, 1 9 5 1 - 1 9 6 0 , a n d Its Jmplicatiorls f o r t h e Church 'Today" (unpublished I'h. D. dissertation, noston Univcrs~ty (.;r;~cl- uatc School, 1962) . Horton Da\,ics, i\ i\lirror of tllc ,lIi?~istr)i in Xloricr?~ Norclt (Xc.1~ York: Osforcl Univcrsit). Press, 1 9 5 9 ) . Peter DcVrics, T i l o ~\lnckcrcl Plclza ( J h s t o n : L t t l c , .13ro\vn. 195R:), chap. i . See Pctclr Gay, The Cnljghtcrrrnerrt: An Intcrprctation. 'The Risc nf !Vodern Yr~gunisrrr (New York: l inopf , 1 9 6 6 ) . See H . h l . G . l'lcardon, Rrligious Thought i n thc Ninctccr~th Ce?r tuv !Cambritlgc, Englantl: Cambridge University Press, 1966). For example, Ilichard U'hately, i n his supcrlativc tour de force, flistoric Doubts Rcluiil-c to Nupolcon Buonaparte, showed that the same s rgu- mcnts H u ~ l i c usctJ tc) clirninatc thc miraculous from the life of Christ would cqualIy wrII eliminate the unique from the carccr of Nawlcon- thus dcstro!ing ail meaningful historical analysis. Sce 1. Gresham hiachcn, C:hristianit?, rtnd Libcralis?n ( N e w York: M a c - millan, 1 9 2 3 ) . See h l o n t g ~ r n c r ~ , "Karl Rarth and Contemporav Theology of History," The Crcssvt., Xovcmher, 1963.

16. Church Dogmatics, I /2 , 529-30. 17. Cf. Brand Blanshard, "lrretioaalisnl in Theology: Critical ~ c f l e c ~ ~ ~ ~ '

on Karl Barth," in John Hick (cd.), Faith and the Philosophers (Net' York: St. Martin's Press, 1964).

18. Brackrtccl figures from 1 to 5 designatr nombercd sections of "The

l'arablc of the E.nginccrs" givcn above. 19. See the essays (including one by the present ~vr i tcr ) in Carl F. Henn

(cd.), Jeszts of Nazareth: Saviozlr Lord (Grand Rapids, Michigan: $crcl&ans, 1966).

2 0 . &lontgomerv. "Tilljch's PhilosoDhv of History," T h e Gordon Review , , - . Summer, 1967.

2 1 - Paul Edkvilrds, "l'rofessor Tillich's Confusions," Mind, April, 1965 . 22. George 11. Tavarcl. Pard Tilliclr a d the Christian Message (New York

Scribncr, 1962), ch;~p. Y. 23. Cllnrles \Villia~ns, Tclliessirz Through Logres (London: Oxford Univer

sity l'rcss, 1938), pp. 31-32. 24. I h ~ \ e chitrtr(1 this (le,;rl(lpment ill dcti~il in my book, The '1s God

Colltrol.crsy ((;rand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervi~n, 1966) . Cf. ,l-hc Abiz~~r-,Ilontgo~~~cry Diolclgae: A Chapter in the God i s Co1rlrol:crc). ( C:hic;lgo: Intcr-Varsity Press, 1967) .

26. See \lontpo~,lcr). "\'i()lcr ;i t Str;lsl>oorg," Christimzit~ T o d w May 26 1907.

27. Scc Rlontgomcr!, '. '1)o;lth ()t. (;o(]' ljccomcs More I)eaclly," clzristianit' 'ro(i(l?, I)cccnll)r~ ! j , 1960.

28. , l - l ~ i ~ h;ls llor Ix,cn eclllilll! trur of clrthodox, c ~ n f ~ s s i o n ~ l scminer ics Trinit, I

37. This is t h c rc,nl tragcd!. o f t h e inilpt h e r ~ ~ ) - - t r i a l discussic>llr; collc:c:rning Piltc in the Episcopal C h u r c h . ;\s for Strino,fcllo\~ 'l-ol\lii.'s arg11- mcnt in T h c Bisl1i.117 I'ilrL. Aj'jiril- ( h e \ " York: Z]ar17cr, 1967) t h a t opposition to the Bishop stclns f r o m liltr;l-right-\\.ing forccl5 i l l i l i l i~;l l t o t h c .\mcric;ln spirit, one r 1\.11o 11~1s . .. c;~l lcd this ch;lrgc "galloI)ing p;lranorn.

115. Cf. C. S. Lc\\.is. \liri/r:lc.s jSc\\ \-clrk: I\[acmill;in, 1 9 4 7 ), cspc'ci;~ll?. cllnp. ~ i i i .

39. Scc i \n t l ion \ Hanson (cd.;;, I'i?r(lir.rztii~t~s: Essi~ys (171 the ~;cio , - icr r l 1Io.si.i. of Chrixticzrrit!; ( f i c ~ \ - \-ork: ~lorct l0i1s~-l : ;11-]0\~, 1966).

4 0 . Scc l.:tf\.\;i~l Y a n ~ a l ~ c l l i . C o ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ s i t i ( ~ r r ir l~rl Cor-roborr7tim itl ~lirs.ricir1 i t r r r i 8il)licnl St r r i i ic (Pllilntlc.lphi,l : l?rcsl))-tcri;rn ; ~ n t l l':cformccl I ) l ~ l ~ l i s h i n g C'onlpany, 1966) ; I-'. Cassirto. 7~'lrc. l)oc7rrrrc??lor?. I l ~ ~ ? ~ t l r c , . s i c , triins. Israel : \br i rh i>m~ (icrusillcrn: :\I i1~111:s Prcss. 7-hc llci,rc\\. L-ni\ c.l.sit!., 1961

4 1 . C. S . J..e\vis, " t \ ~ ( ~ ~ l c r ~ i ' l ~ l ~ r o l ~ ) ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I L I 13ihlic:1l Critit:is~li, ' ' ( ; / i r : i~ i ( r l~ Ilci lcctio~rs. c ~ l . \\';lltcr Hoopcr { G r i ~ n c i I~; lp ids , Y l i c l ~ i ~ i i n : l.:c.rdm;lns. 1967 , p. 161. Scc also tllc c x c c ~ l l ~ ~ n t rc.cc,nt nlork I)!. , \ ~ l c i l ~ t i n C : c ~ ~ - t l i r l ; ~ l l:c.;l, 7-11c Stztrl? of ! ~ I L , S ~ ~ r r r ~ ! t i c C;os1)~~1s: XL'II: :'I/!~)I.O~IC)IC.X i ~ ~ r i l 01l110ok.s (Tc \ \ . Yol-I;: H ;~r - lx~r . 1 9 6 5 ) .

4 2 . Sir I7rc.clcric i l it!. h c 111111- sc.lf 11'1s irntcccdcntl) rcjcctcrl on p;~cc: after pagc.. Tn nl!. \,I(:\\., tllc hook slio~lltl hc. tlisrnisscc! ;IS the* Inere cul.ic.~sit,- i t is." \Vor t l~ \ . of' c.1rcf111 ~ X ~ I I I I - t i ; ~ t i o ~ l is tlic 1lct;~iIccl sclioI;~rI! rc\,je\\; of 2"lrc I'rl5s111cr J ' l ~ l t 111 -1')rc (;or.~/otr 1?c,tic.lc., S11n1nic.r. 1 9 6 7 /I,!. I(tl\\in X I . \ ' ;lnl;~i~c.hi i .

4 5 . ' I - / , 511rj I ~r(rcir~is, ii. 46 . J l t . 4 : 4 , c111oting J l e ~ r t . S: 3. 4 lohn 1 4 : 2 ( i - 2 7 : I h : 12 -15 ; c f . :\c.ts 1 : 21 -26 ; 1 (:or. 1 4 : 3 7 ; 1 1 i'c:t. 1 : 15 .

~ c c , ;11si, j\lontrolncr.!.. T1rc Slrril~c~ i ~ f tlrc: J'rrst: -4tr Irrtro(l~rc/iorr to 1'11110- J C J i o 1 1 ~ 1 1 I n r 1 i i 1 : Ild\vnrd\ ljrothcrs. 1963::. 1-11?. 11s-39, 1 7 1-72.

4 s . < . f ' . 1 . 1 ' . ~ ; ~ L I C ( * , .~-!IC , \ - ( , I L , 7~cfllrtvlc~11t ~)c)c~r i~t rc t i i~ ,I:irl> 11s(:fi11 orks 1i:1\ c l)c.L>~i i \ . r i t t c~ i ~ l c , ~ i I i ~ ~ ~ \ \ i t 1 1 I I I C prot>Ir111 p:i\si~gcs r ~ i ' t tlc 1 3 1 h l c . : \ t~>ong t . l ~ c , l>c$t 111 1~~1lgI i \ l l ;ire t\ \ ,o I>i~(>lis 1):' he\!. -1'c~t-1- i t r e : I i r ~ p i r \ i I l i m 1 . r n : lliblc l ) i j j i c r [ l t i~~s (St . I .OLIIS, l i s s o ~ ~ i : C:oncordia, 1 9 5 1 ) , ancl Uocs t h e ljihlc (:ontrciclrct I t s ( , [ f ' [ S t . ~ . ~ L I I < , \ l i s ~ o ~ l r i : Concijrcli;~, 19 3 51 . Cif. ;ilso P,. 11. ~ I r a r f i c 1 ~ ~ , "l'hc l~rspirrrti{,,)r (z1rl1 Arithor~t? o f t l r ~ , 13ihlc, (:(I. S;I~~ILIC>I G. Cra ig (l 'h~li .~(Irl- ph ia : I ' rccl , \ tc,r ia~~ ;~nt.l l i c f o r ~ ~ l c c l l ' i l1)l ishin~ C:ornp;~n>, 1948) ; ancl . \ l o n t g n ~ ~ ~ c r \ . , " . lncl~~ctivc Incrrn;~~! . ," (:l~ri\tiLrrlit, 'I'oc/cr?.! , l l , ~ r c h 3, l ' jh?.

50. John L-ptlikc. \'i:rsc