DOCSLIB.ORG

Dievo Mirties Teologija Kaip Emancipacinis Mąstymas Death of God Theology As Emancipatory Thinking1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dievo Mirties Teologija Kaip Emancipacinis Mąstymas Death of God Theology As Emancipatory Thinking1 https://doi.org/10.24101/logos.2021.05 Gauta 2021 02 26 AlGIRDAS FEDIAjEvAS vilniaus universitetas, lietuva vilnius University, lithuania DIEvO mIRTIES TEOlOGIjA KAIp EmAnCIpACInIS mąSTYmAS Death of God Theology as Emancipatory Thinking1 SUmmARY The article analyzes Death of God theology as an emancipatory way of thinking relevant to the contem- porary context. Stressing the historicity of the Christian message, Death of God theology rests upon the premise that the world has come of age. On the one hand, it attempts to interpret the Christian message without any religious elements, on the other, it claims that the negation of transcendence and the immedi- ate givenness, historicity and eschatological orientation towards the future are the essence of Christianity. If the contemporary cultural situation is also treated as givenness, the message of these theologians is an invitation to negagte the contemporary status quo while not returning to the previous forms of thinking and being and not self-closing in an ahistorical shell. SAnTRAUKA Straipsnyje nagrinėjama Dievo mirties teologija kaip šiuolaikiniame kultūriniame kontekste aktualus eman- cipacinio mąstymo būdas. Akcentuodama krikščioniškosios žinios istoriškumą, Dievo mirties teologija at- siremia į prielaidas apie šiuolaikinio pasaulio „nereligiškumą“. viena vertus, ji siekia aiškinti krikščioniš- kąją žinią be religinių priemaišų, kita vertus, teigia, kad transcendencijos ir bet kokios netarpiškos duotybės neigimas, istoriškumas ir eschatologinė orientacija į ateitį yra krikščionybės esmė. Esamą kultūrinę situaci- ją laikant dar viena duotybe, šių teologų skelbiamą žinią galima suvokti kaip tokią, kuri siūlo neigti esamą status quo negrįžtant nei į ankstesnes mąstymo ir buvimo formas, nei užsidarant aistoriniame kiaute. InTRODUCTIOn Death of God theology, L’Enfant ter- USA, still attains ambiguous evaluation. rible of the religious thinking of the 1960s Even disregarding the silence or the ab- RAKTAŽODŽIAI: Dievo mirties teologija, krikščionybė, transcendencija, emancipacija, neigimas. KEY WORDS: Death of God theology, Christianity, transcendence, emancipation, negation. Copyright © 2021 Algirdas Fediajevas. published by pO lOGOS press. This is an Open Access article dis- tributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence, which permits unrestricted use, distri- LOGOS 106 35 bution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. 2021 SAUSIS • KOVAS ALGIRDAS FEDIAJEVAS solute rejection by the conservative wing, interpretation of the situation of the 21st views on it are still divergent. Some century and emphasized the continuity treated Death of God theology, the main between the original Death of God theol- proponents of which were Thomas J. J. ogy of the ‘60s and his contemporary Altizer, Paul Van Buren, William Ham- theological thinking (Altizer 2002: x). ilton, and Gabriel Vahanian, as only a However, can this theology be treated product of the spirit of the 1960s or that as emancipatory thinking? There are a it was still an expression of the modern few aspects that seem problematic. First- Grand Narrative and a logical conse- ly, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a theologian who quence of liberal Protestantism, Barthian is usually regarded as the main precur- Neo-orthodoxy and Bultmannian demy- sor of this school (and whose life is a thologization (Tracy 2000: 240–241). Oth- perfect example of resistance), wrote that ers think that it was the first proper wave the boundaries between resistance and of radical theology, which goes hand in submission are unclear (Bonhoeffer 1959: hand with the contemporary world and 104–105). Hamilton asserts that Death of has emancipatory purposes as its essence God theology is a manifestation of the (Robbins & Crockett 2015: 2). This article bright and hopeful spirit of the ‘60s. will not only support the latter point of Moreover, he claims that a contemporary view, it will develop it further: Death of Christian must not be an anti-bourgeois, God theology will be analyzed as eman- individualistic person, contrary – the cipatory theological thinking dealing concept of rebellion and the praise of it with the contemporary Western world, common to the culture of the late 19th which, according to Alain Badiou, can century – the first part of the 20th cen- be treated as paralyzing any emancipa- tury has already staled (Hamilton 1966: tory thinking (Badiou 2013: xiv–xv). 38). Altizer, although he stresses negativ- Although the death of Death of God ity, nevertheless invites us to accept the theology was proclaimed even in the historical necessity of the present, which times of its peak in popularity (Leavitt is described as the time of stasis and im- Pearl & Rodkey 2018: 55), this way of possibility of rebellion (Altizer 2012: 25). thinking finds its place not only in the However, these questions do not lead to ‘60s. Firstly, some contemporary authors the rejection of the emancipatory poten- find it relevant for the postmodern, post- tial of Death of God theology; they lead secular situation. Secondly, the most fa- to the reconsideration of the question of mous proponent of Death of God school, emancipation that is relevant in the con- Altizer, transformed his ideas for the temporary philosophical context. RElIGIOn AnD “RElIGIOnlESS ChRISTIAnITY” The basic introductory premise for by Bonhoeffer: the world has come of Death of God theology was formulated age. Bonhoeffer shared Bultmannian and 36 LOGOS 106 2021 SAUSIS • KOVAS MokslinĖ Mintis Tillichian concern about the relevance of in a specific historical time and context. the Christian message to the contempo- But historically emancipatory power of rary world (and Death of God school religion has already vanished; it has be- only radicalizes this concern) and claimed come a conservative structure (Hegel that world does not need God as a work- 2010: 124; 735). Death of God theologians, ing hypothesis anymore. It is unneces- while accepting Hegelian historicity, also sary neither as a link for the explanation accept his approach to religion. of the world, nor as the filler of human Nevertheless, what makes Christian- emptiness (Bonhoeffer 1959: 124). ity exceptional among other religions? According to Vahanian, whose book Altizer emphasizes its eschatological Death of God: The Culture of Our Post- character. Instead of longing for the lost Christian era is considered the first text paradise, for the primordial, Christian- of Death of God theology (Long 1999: ity proclaimed Absolute Novum: 52) and the primary link between Bon- the very symbol of absolute novum was hoeffer and Death of God theology, reli- born in Christianity, a symbol originally gion “only serves to fill the vacuum cre- enacted in Jesus’ proclamation of the ad- ated by the breakdown of man’s under- vent of the Kingdom of God... Hence standing of himself and his relation to original Christianity was a revolutionary the universe and to the human commu- movement towards an absolutely new nity; ... is an expression of sublimated future, as for the first time a movement loneliness” (Vahanian 1961: 4). The es- was born that was wholly and totally sence of Christianity is not the concept directed towards an absolutely new fu- of God-filler (this was common to the ture, and only after this birth does there arise an actual movement towards a religious side of Christian theology from truly new future in history itself (Altizer scholasticism to existential theology), 2002: 9). therefore, the Christian message can be reinterpreted in the contemporary con- This means that Christianity in its es- text without religious elements. sence is progressive and directed towards The idea of religionless Christianity, the future in its pure sense. All past forms stemming from Bonhoeffer, is accepted of religious Christianity that emphasize by all Death of God theologians. But it is stable tradition, ecclesiastical order, and not only Bonhoeffer’s idea; it can be de- an unchanging concept of God and world rived from Søren Kierkegaard, George betray the essence of the Christian mes- Hegel, and Immanuel Kant. Among these sage. The progressive element is also the three authors Hegel is the most impor- axis of the emancipatory essence of Chris- tant philosopher for Death of God school. tianity. According to Altizer and the oth- For Hegel, religion, as art and philoso- ers, it is directly connected with the sec- phy, is the negation of the immediate ond premise of Death of God theology – givenness; it has emancipatory potential negation of transcendence. LOGOS 106 37 2021 SAUSIS • KOVAS ALGIRDAS FEDIAJEVAS nEGATIOn OF TRAnSCEnDEnT GOD Negation of transcendence or the This idea is implicit in Bonhoeffer’s let- proclamation of Death of God is an as- ters, but it appears more explicitly in pect which conjoins all the authors of Vahanian’s Death of God and is generally Death of God theology. However, the accepted by later Death of God theolo- meaning of Death of God varies. gians as one of the basic premises. Here For Vahanian, the loss of transcen- Hegelian mediation overcomes Kierkeg- dent power mainly means its disappear- aardian difference, and nothing is left ance from culture (Vahanian 1961: 7–8). unmediated: transcendence is swallowed He claims the victory of the secularized, by immanence. That is why Vahanian post-Christian worldview: states that “God’s absence, or the death Our culture is no longer transcendentalist of God itself, has become what a man but immanentist; no longer sacral or sac- directly experiences” (ibid.: 187). There ramental, but secularistic or profane. This is nothing beyond immanent culture. transition is explained by the fact that the Hamilton and Van Buren develop essentially mythological world-view of these ideas in different ways. The former Christianity has been succeeded by a refers to God’s absence, ultimately held thoroughgoing scientific view of reality, on by Barthian Neo-orthodoxy: “this in terms of which either God is no longer God, we used to say, will never let us go. necessary, or he is neither necessary nor But he has, or we have him, or some- unnecessary: he is irrelevant, he is dead thing...” (Hamilton 1966a: 35).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Critical Remarks on the Theoretical Significance of Vahanian’S Death of God Theology (Brief Review)
    Andranik STEPANYAN UDC 2:13 Andranik STEPANYAN CRITICAL REMARKS ON THE THEORETICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF VAHANIAN’S DEATH OF GOD THEOLOGY (BRIEF REVIEW) Abstract The aim of this article is to briefly present and analyse in the context of radical theology the theoretical significance of Gabriel Vahanian’s death of God theology from the theological, philo- sophical and cultural viewpoints. Gabriel Vahanian was a French-Armenian distinguished theologi- an who played a significant role in the western religious, theological-philosophical thought. The main idea of Vahanian is that the death of God is a cultural phenomenon. God himself is not dead, but men’s religious and cultural perceptions about God are dead as modern man has lost the sense of transcendence and the presence of transcendent God. That is, the death of God means his absence in the modern world. The existence of God and his reality are not self-sufficient realities anymore but are irrelevant for modern people, hence dead. Keywords: radical theology, death of God theology, transcendent, immanent, religiosity, reli- gionism, religiousness, religious formalism, secularism, secularity. Introduction was widespread and all-inclusive which was manifested in various areas of political and In the world history, the XX century has conceptual, as well as spiritual life. An expres- been a period of unprecedented transfor- sion of this crisis was the radical thinking mations when humanity started facing myriads which found its reflection in philosophical, of serious problems. It is not accidental that the cultural, religious and theological thought. XX century was called “century of global German philosopher F. Nietzsche is the source problems”; issues the solution of which not of western radical thinking whose “God is only conditions the progress of humanity but dead” expression became the slogan of radical also the survival of human race in general.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard L. Rubenstein
    Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in Article Talk Read Edit View history Search Wikipedia Richard L. Rubenstein From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Richard Lowell Rubenstein Main page Richard Lowell Rubenstein Contents (born January 8, 1924 in New Occupation Rabbi, Professor Featured content York City) is an educator in Title Rabbi Current events religion and a writer in the Random article American Jewish community, Donate to Wikipedia noted particularly for his contributions to Holocaust theology. A Connecticut Wikipedia store resident, he was married to art historian Betty Rogers Rubenstein (deceased Interaction 2013). Help Contents [hide] About Wikipedia Community portal 1 Education Recent changes 2 Career Contact page 3 The Holocaust and death of God 4 Unification Church Tools 5 Other writings What links here 6 Works Related changes 6.1 Autobiography Upload file 6.2 Books Special pages Permanent link 7 Assessments Page information 8 External links Wikidata item 9 See also Cite this page 10 References Print/export Create a book Education [ edit ] Download as PDF Printable version Rubenstein began his tertiary education at Hebrew Union College, an institution within the Reform Judaism tradition. He graduated from the Languages University of Cincinnati with a B.A. degree. He then was awarded the Master Deutsch of Hebrew Literature from the Jewish Theological Seminary of America Español (Conservative tradition) and was also ordained as a rabbi by that institution. Italiano He then studied at Harvard Divinity School and was awarded a Master of Română Sacred Theology degree. Finally, he pursued doctoral studies and received Русский [1] Edit links a Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard L. Rubenstein - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Richard L. Rubenstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_L._Rubenstein&pr... Richard L. Rubenstein From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Richard Lowell Rubenstein (born January 8, 1924 in New York City) is an educator in religion and a writer in the American Jewish community, noted particularly for his contributions to Holocaust theology. A Connecticut resident, he was married to art historian Betty Rogers Rubenstein (deceased 2013). Contents 1 Education 2 Career 3 Holocaust and Death of God 4 Unification Church 5 Other writings 6 See also 7 References 8 Autobiography 9 Bibliography 10 Assessments 11 External links Education Rubenstein began his tertiary education at Hebrew Union College, an institution within the Reform Judaism tradition. He graduated from the University of Cincinnati with a B.A. degree. He then was awarded the Master of Hebrew Literature from the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (Conservative tradition) and was also ordained as a rabbi by that institution. He then studied at Harvard Divinity School and was awarded a Master of Sacred Theology degree. Finally, he pursued doctoral studies and received a Ph.D. from Harvard University, in 1960. [1] In addition to his earned degrees, Rubenstein has been honored with two honorary doctorates: Doctor of Hebrew Letters (Jewish Theological Seminary) and Doctor of Humane Letters (Grand Valley State University). Career Following his ordination in 1952, Rubenstein was the rabbi of two Massachusetts congregations in succession, and then in 1956 became Assistant Director of the B'nai B'rith Hillel Foundation and chaplain to the Jewish students at Harvard University, Radcliffe and Wellesley, where he served until 1958.
    [Show full text]
  • Radical Theology
    RADICAL THEOLOGY From Honest-to.God to God-Is-Dead RICHARD P. MeBRIEN Thomas J. J. Altizer has recently published the clearest rected to the central and fundamental question of God's and most unequivocal statement of "death-of-God theol- existence, or that the "death-of-God" stir is challenging ogy" that has yet to appear: The Gospel of Christian Christian theologians to adopt a more theoretical posture Atheism (Philadelphia: Westminster). Paul Van Buren, (as opposed to what might be described as a "creeping in his Secular Meaning of the Gospel, insists that the word biblicism"). But others, who are more concerned with the "God" is meaningless, that we must be prepared to dis- impact and effectiveness of the Church's mission in the pense with all forms of "God-talk." William Hamilton, world, are annoyed by the introduction of another "reli- even in his second, revised edition of The New Essence of gious" question, which is diversionary in character be- Christianity, continues to speak of a God who has with- cause it comes at the moment when the Church is prepar- drawn from the world and he exhorts us to live as if God ing, at long last, to "move out" and to assume her does not exist. Altizer alone proclaims the actual death of responsibilities in and for the "secular city." God. As a matter of fact, the primary concern of the "death- According to Altizer, God is not absent. He is not of-God theologians" is not doctrinal, but ethical. And merely in eclipse. It's not simply a question of language their theological point-of-reference is not God (dead or and terminology.
    [Show full text]
  • “The Post-Christian Christian Church”
    “The Post-Christian Christian Church” Ecclesiological Implications of Mattias Martinson’s Post-Christian Theology Simon Hallonsten 860826-7210 Church and Mission Studies E, 30 hp Ninna Edgardh Faculty of Theology Uppsala University I would like to emphasize that the problem of the future of religion could also be translated into the smaller, but also very important problem, of the future of the Church. — Gianni Vattimo Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Previous Research ........................................................................................................................ 2 1.2 Aim and Problem Formulation ................................................................................................. 8 1.3 Material ........................................................................................................................................ 10 1.4 Method ........................................................................................................................................ 13 1.5 Theoretical Perspective ............................................................................................................. 18 1.6 Disposition ................................................................................................................................. 24 2. Post-Theologies for a Post-World .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Theological Plunderphonics: Public Theology and "The Fragment"
    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2012 Theological Plunderphonics: Public Theology and "the Fragment" William Myatt Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss Part of the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Myatt, William, "Theological Plunderphonics: Public Theology and "the Fragment"" (2012). Dissertations. 424. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/424 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 2012 William Myatt LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO THEOLOGICAL PLUNDERPHONICS: PUBLIC THEOLOGY AND “THE FRAGMENT” A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY PROGRAM IN THEOLOGY BY WILLIAM MYATT CHICAGO, IL DECEMBER 2012 Copyright by William Myatt, 2012 All rights reserved. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS One rarely realizes how much teamwork has gone into the writing of a dissertation until sitting down to write the “acknowledgements” thereof. My list begins with the longsuffering committee members who have endured more silence than I care to admit, while I have argued with myself and others in the solitary confines of a dissertation cell. Dr. Hille Haker’s early advice on my reading of Walter Benjamin, her challenge to my reading of Ricoeur, and her insistence that I clarify why I was using such an eclectic group of thinkers was invaluable.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Canterbury DID GOD DIE in the CHRISTIAN CENTURY? N
    MIKE G RIMSHAW University of Canterbury DID GOD DIE IN THE CHRISTIAN CENTURY ? N 1984 AN INTRIGUING INSTANCE of historical and theological revisionism I occurred which rivals the Stalinist’s excision of now uncomfortable events from recent history. What is interesting is that this occurred in an act of celebration, as part of a series of public statements attempting to show just how important, crucial, formative, in-step, in-touch and even up-to-date a popular journal of Protestant theology had been. Celebrating its centenary, The Christian Century ran a series in which crucial events and topics of various decades were revisited showing the changing theological culture of America from 1884 to that present day. So it came to James M. Wall,1 editor of the journal since1972, to address the issues of the period 1962-1971. The title of Wall's review gives a signal of its contents: “Adopting Realism: The Century 1962-1971.” 2But “realism” can be read in different ways. Is Wall’s realism a facing up to the place of Christianity in a decade of secularization? Is it a realization that the “Christian Century” had been lived after Nietzsche proclaimed the death of God, a century where Christianity was challenged by political ideologies and consumer capitalism? Is this review a noting of the theological ferment that had placed theology on the cover of Time magazine, spawned new catchphrases and produced theological bestsellers? Wall does make an oblique note for the initiated, briefly noting the impact of Karl Barth on American theology and Christianity during this period.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Introduction
    Historical Introduction LISSA MCCULLOUGH From the beginning, and throughout its course, Thomas J. J. Altizer’s theological stance set him apart from the other figures associated with the so-called death of God movement, which achieved its peak from 1965 through 1967, then subsided in the late sixties and early seventies. In truth, it was not organically a movement at all, but was generated as such by the media treatment. William Hamilton and Paul van Buren were the fellow travelers most often cited, while mention was made here and there of Richard Rubenstein, Gabriel Vahanian, Harvey Cox, and Langdon Gilkey.1 In the media coverage, which often failed to make finer distinc- tions among their disparate positions, a number of outlooks were cor- ralled together that did not have much in common. Some were using the phrase as a cipher for the secularization of society (Cox, Vahanian), oth- ers were concerned to examine the vacuity and impossibility of God lan- guage (van Buren) or the impossibility of believing in God in the wake of the Holocaust (Rubenstein), while others wanted to develop Bonho- effer’s notion of a “religionless Christianity” focused on ethics and Jesus as the man for others, pulling the mind of the age away from the God question as moot metaphysics (Hamilton). Only Altizer among them was intent to focus on God and nothing but God. His concern lay not primarily with human existential need or the condition of society, but with what God has done in history. Beginning with his earliest writings, Altizer’s position was theocentric and metaphysical.
    [Show full text]
  • Karl Barth, Missions to the Jews, and the American Response
    KARL BARTH, MISSIONS TO THE JEWS, AND THE AMERICAN RESPONSE Stephanie Rebekah Gaskill A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS March 2010 Committee: Dr. Beth Griech-Polelle, Advisor Dr. Don Rowney © 2010 Stephanie Rebekah Gaskill All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Dr. Beth Griech-Polelle, Advisor The Christian mission to the Jews has always been one of the most contentious elements in Jewish-Christian relations, and remains so today. Though they differed greatly from coercive efforts to convert the Jews (such as those of knights during the First Crusade in 1095), modern missionary societies established in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were still resented by many Jews. But while individual Christian thinkers voiced doubts about their validity long before, it was not until after the Holocaust, and especially after the Vatican II Council of 1965, that missions to the Jews came to be seriously questioned by a large number of Christian theologians. Most notably, such theologians began to reconsider supersessionism, or the long- held notion that the Jews were responsible for the death of Christ and had thus been replaced as God’s people by the Christian church. While theologians from other nations were also involved in this process, the reevaluation of missions to the Jews took place primarily in Germany and America. Though there are many crucial points of contact between these two parallel efforts to reevaluation the relationship between Christians and Jews, one of the intriguing is the work of Karl Barth.
    [Show full text]
  • The Palgrave Handbook of Radical Theology Edited by Christopher D
    The Palgrave Handbook of Radical Theology Edited by Christopher D. Rodkey · Jordan E. Miller Radical Theologies and Philosophies Series Editors Mike Grimshaw Department of Sociology University of Canterbury Christchurch, New Zealand Michael Zbaraschuk Pacific Lutheran University Tacoma, WA, USA Joshua Ramey Grinnell College Grinnell, IA, USA Radical Theologies and Philosophies is a call for transformational theologies that break out of traditional locations and approaches. The rhizomic ethos of radical theologies enable the series to engage with an ever-expanding radical expression and critique of theologies that have entered or seek to enter the public sphere, arising from the continued turn to religion and especially radical theology in politics, social sciences, philosophy, theory, cultural, and literary studies. The post-theistic theology both driving and arising from these intersections is the focus of this series. More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14521 Christopher D. Rodkey • Jordan E. Miller Editors The Palgrave Handbook of Radical Theology Editors Christopher D. Rodkey Jordan E. Miller St. Paul’s United Church of Christ Independent Dallastown, PA, USA Newport, RI, USA Radical Theologies and Philosophies ISBN 978-3-319-96594-9 ISBN 978-3-319-96595-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96595-6 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018957459 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
    [Show full text]
  • Is God Dead? a Philosophical-Theological Critique of the Death of God Movement
    IS GOD DEAD? A Philosophical-Theological Critique of the Death of God Movement* James Warwick Montgomery The subject of this paper is the new theological science of Theothanatology, wherein God's mortal illness or demise serves as the starting point for a radically secular approach to the modern world. ! The national publicity lately given to this movement in general periodicals {Time, The New Yorker, The New York Times, etc.) may produce the false impression that here Protestantism has again spawned an unstable lunatic fringe which will disappear before one knows it�or quickly be replaced, as the Beatles edged out Elvis Presley. A closer look, however, reveals that the death-of-God movement is no flash in the theological pan. Stokes, a critical col league of theothanatologist Altizer at Emory University, has recently and accurately mapped "the nontheistic temper of the modern mind"; the death-of-God theologies are consciously relating to this temper Carl F. H. Henry, on closely observing the present European theo logical climate, has noted that, after the relatively brief Barthian interlude, the cold winds of rationalism are blowing again; in the death-of-God movement America is beginning to feel these winds * This paper is a revised version of a lecture delivered at the Concordia Theological Seminary, Springfield, Illinois, on February 3, 1966, by invitation of the Department of Systematic Theology and underwritten by the Fred C. Rutz Foundation. 1. We prefer the neutral term "Theothanatology" to J. Robert Nelson's "Theothanasia" (implying that the new theologians have put God to death; except for Altizer, who speaks, a la Nietzsche, of "passion ately willing God's death," the death-of-God theologians regard the divine demise as a "natural" phenomenon of our time, over which one " has little or no or control) "Theothanatopsis (which conjures up the shade of William Cullen Bryant, who would have been horror-struck at this whole movement).
    [Show full text]
  • 107 Introduction the Real Tillich Is the Radical Tillich Russell Re Manning
    Introduction The Real Tillich Is the Radical Tillich Russell Re Manning Paul Tillich (1886–1965) is perhaps best known as a liberal theologian of mediation, whose famous method of correlation aims to respond to humanity’s existential questions with answers drawn from the Christian message. Key concepts such as ultimate concern, the new being, and the sacred depths of culture have been influential and have powerfully informed the liberal theological agenda of mainstream developments in the second half of the Twentieth Century. Notable instances include theologians associated with Chicago (such as David Tracey and, more recently, William Schweiker), as well as a diverse range of thinkers in the fields of theological engagement with culture (e.g., much recent work in theology and film) and the sciences (including figures such as John Haught and Philip Clayton). Indeed, as Jonathan Z. Smith has recently noted, Tillich’s influence (albeit often unacknowledged) lies behind the very enterprise of the American Academy of Religion—the world’s largest forum for scholarly work in theology and religious studies. Nearly 50 years after his death in 1965, Tillich has become an establishment thinker, a safe (albeit never entirely uncontroversial!) exemplar of a mid-twentieth- century theological liberalism, untroubled by the social and intellectual developments that have provoked the most recent generation of philosophical theologians to take up increasingly extreme and polarized stances. From the reactionary theo-politics of post- liberalism and Radical Orthodoxy to the radical secular theologies of John D. Caputo and Mark C. Taylor (not forgetting the equally radical anti-theologies of the so-called “new atheism” and the “newer atheisms” of contemporary continental philosophy), the current theological landscape is dominated by the notion of radicality.
    [Show full text]