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 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 , 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). Hamilton (ibid.: xxxii). concludes, that “my Protestant has no This statement is significant, although God, has no faith in God, and affirms not only does it not look very different both the death of God and the death of from Bonhoeffer’s, but it also resembles all the forms of theism”. (ibid.: 37). Van Rudolf Bultmann’s or ’s ideas. Buren’s negative diagnosis rests upon the Culture is secular, but, according to Bar- premise that our age is empirically based thian Neo-orthodoxy, a Christian must (Van Buren 1969: 17). Using the methods not seek God in culture as Christianity of logical positivism and in the same way and Christendom are separate things; as other Death of God theologians seek- Barth “makes the world atheistic” (Proz- ing for the meaning of the Christian mes- esky 1981: 49). Human must not seek sage for contemporary people, he ana- God anywhere, as God is absolutely lyzes not only the sources of theological transcendent, and it is in his initiative to culture of the 20th century (Bultmann, call a human. Nevertheless, here one of Schubert M. Ogden), but also the Gospel. the main divergent points between ear- Van Buren arrives at the conclusion, that lier Protestant theology and Death of “the problem of the Gospel in a secular God school arises: the Christian message age is a problem of the logic of its appar- is inseparable from culture – “culture is ently meaningless language” (ibid.: 84). as relevant to religion as the earth was If Bonhoeffer, Vahanian, Van Buren to Adam’s sweat” (Vahanian 1961: 161). and Hamilton can be named non-literal

38 LOGOS 106 2021 SAUSIS • KOVAS MokslinĖ mintis proclaimers of death of God (Lyas 1970: not some part of him), Crucifixion and 2), Altizer is partly different. On the one Resurrection are the events in which sa- hand, for him the absence of transcen- cred transforms into profane, history of dence seems to refer to the cultural situ- the Christendom is the actualization, ation. On the other, he asserts, that “the Kingdom of God is the completion of Christian God belongs to Christendom” these processes (Altizer 1966b: 41; 54). (Altizer 1966: 13). God as the transcen- Unlike in religious thinking, in Christi- dent has truly died firstly in the Incarna- anity immanence is not an illusory state; tion, then in the Crucifixion, then in it is real. There is nothing beyond im- culture (Altizer 1966b: 54; 136). Here manence, therefore, time and history are Altizer becomes more radical than his real. All previous forms of Christian the- colleagues Hamilton or Van Buren. The ology and philosophy that keep ideas latter ones avoid an essentialistic way of about the presence of the transcendent writing. Hamilton starts The New Essence God are derived from Neo-Platonism of Christianity with revealing his inten- and they all abandon the dialectical (re- tion that he “would not deliver the es- al) meaning of the Gospel (Altizer 1966b: sence, once and for all, but rather an 42; Van Buren 1969: 40). essence here and now for us – always It can also be seen that the death of ready to be corrected” (Hamilton 1966b: the transcendent God is treated as the 12). Van Buren initiates The Secular Mean- Good News. It is the event of the libera- ing of the Gospel with words, that “we tion of Man from the transcendent au- have no Archimedean point from which thority. Van Buren interprets the figure to make any final decisions about Chris- of Jesus Christ as a completely free man tianity” (Van Buren 1969: xxiii). Altizer who is the liberator of others for “being is also an anti-essentialistic author, how- free for one’s neighbor” (Van Buren 1969: ever, he explicitly accepts Hegelian neg- 163). Hamilton claims, that Christianity ativity (kenosis) as the essence of his teaches to rebel against the Father (Ham- thinking and as the essence of Christian- ilton 1966b: 140–141) and to move away ity. That is why he claims that the nega- from the cloister to the world (Hamilton tion of transcendence is the essence of 1966a: 36). Altizer stresses the joy that the Gospel. Incarnation is the event in comes from the death of God (Altizer which transcendence actually becomes 1966b: 51). Incarnation is the first step immanence (there is no transcendent, towards liberation, Crucifixion is the be- eternal, over-historical Godhead left after ginning of its completion; the event in the Incarnation as the Incarnation is the which a human being finally stands up event in which God transforms himself, on his own two feet.

Negation of unmediated individuality

If negation of the transcendent God soluteness of immanent mediation, cul- can easily be treated as an emancipatory ture. This aspect is the point where the idea, it is more complicated with the ab- perspectives of religious existentialism

LOGOS 106 39 2021 SAUSIS • KOVAS Algirdas Fediajevas

and Death of God theology part ways. to the main principles of Christianity The latter appears as post-existentialist (Hamilton 1966b: 148) as Christian life thinking, in which there are lots of refer- “is a going out into the world. The self ences to the texts of the religious exis- is discovered, but only incidentally, as tentialists (Kierkegaard, , one moves out into the world to tear off Bultmann, etc.), however, their ideas are the masks” (Hamilton 1966a: 49). dialectically negated. Altizer’s arguments against religious Religious existentialism, initiated by existentialism are interconnected with Kierkegaard, claims the concrete his- those of other Death of God theologians. torical self-caring human existence to be While accepting the historical value of at its center. Nevertheless, it is also based religious existentialism (it revealed that on the idea of ontological individuality faith is only possible by negating Church of concrete human existence. Ontological authority and dogmas), he claims, that individuality is due to the individual’s such thinkers “have clung to a non-dia- relationship with the transcendent God. lectical dualism” (Altizer 1966: 147) This relationship and the human’s onto- where faith and the individual are “iso- logical individuality can only be actual- lated from history, faith is independent ized by faith, which is ungraspable by of a historical ground, and thus totally any kind of mediation. This leads to the autonomous” (ibid.: 10). That is why an conclusion that neither God, neither the individual who has fully actualized his relationship, nor the individual are ontological individuality – Kierkegaard’s graspable by any kind of mediation; they knight of faith – is out of time and space; overcome culture and history. The indi- it is an abstraction (ibid.: 124). The big- vidual is transcendental to culture; the gest danger of resting upon dualisms of individual is over-historical. religious existentialism (society vs. indi- Death of God theologians accuse re- vidual, culture vs. individual, reason vs. ligious existentialism of being “semi- faith) now is the isolation which Altizer existential because no dialectical theolo- names Gnosticism – “a profound hatred gian has been open to a contemporary of the world and the existence in the form of Existenz” (Altizer 1966a: 10). Van world … a world-opposing form of faith Buren claims, that Bultmann “in binding in quest of a salvation that can be faith to a particular incident in the dis- reached … only by the most radical kind tant past, has retained a mythological of world-negation” (ibid.: 19). In a post- element which violates “modern man’s modern, post-structuralistic way, Altizer “self-understanding” (Van Buren 1969: proposes, that “ours is a time when the 9). He continues, that faith always in- individual person has disappeared, or volves reason, “for Christian faith is in- at least that form of the person has separably related to history, and history passed away which was a peculiar cre- requires reasoning” (ibid.: 175). Hamilton ation of the Western culture and soci- agrees with such critique while adding ety” (Altizer 1966: 14). that an open break with culture, com- All this shows that Death of God mon for existentialists, may be contrary theologians treat religious existentialism

40 LOGOS 106 2021 SAUSIS • KOVAS MokslinĖ mintis

(and any kind of thinking that rests up- “more and more turned man to his inner on the unmediated ontological individ- world, leaving behind the outer world” ual) as over. It used to hold emancipa- (Hamilton 1966a: 158). From the perspec- tory power but became “one of the fash- tive of Death of God theologians, it has ionable ideologies for the Eisenhower drowned all its emancipatory potential period in American intellectual life” and in the illusory innerness of the subject.

Emancipation in the contemporary context

If the transcendent realm (God and even religion and the church” (Hamilton individuality) is negated, does it mean 1966b: 140). However, negation does not that Death of God theology invites us to mean the return to the previous forms the passive acceptance of the historical of resistance and emancipation (existen- necessity of our age and the abolition of tialist, modernist), also it is not an escape negation? Transcendence used to be the from the historical reality to the Gnostic source of negation of the givenness, but ahistorical shell. Analogies can be found now it does not seem to be so. in the relation between German Idealism Death of God theology, if we see it and Kant: idealists negate Kantian dual- rooted in the late modernity (the 1960s) isms while taking them into consider- and limited to its chronological borders, ation, not trying to avoid them and not may seem silent about these questions. returning to the previous ways of think- However, Altizer’s texts prove this is not ing. Death of God theologians can be the case. Continuing the line from the criticized for not providing actual con- ‘60s he writes about the postmodern era, tent of the negation: they do not explain which he treats as a neoconservative how to act “here and now” or what does time, where the new Father emerges. The “authentic historic existence” mean. new Father who proclaims pluralism, Nevertheless, is not the emphasis on multiplicity, the end of the subject, his- form instead of content an aspect very tory, art, truth, emancipation, etc. (Al- particular to the Christian message? And tizer 2002: vii; Badiou 2002: liii–lv). is not the unclear relation between rebel- Death of God theologians emphasize lion and conformity the same as the rela- the eschatological proclamation of King- tion between eschatological waiting and dom of God, an absolutely new reality, acting also what remains indefinable up as one of the main aspects of Christian- to this day? Emphasis on form instead ity (Altizer 2002: 9). In the contemporary of content gives a lot of space for free- context it would mean not the passive dom and responsibility for the individ- acceptance of the historical necessity, but ual and for the group to negate the the negation of the postmodern conser- givenness and to create new content. vatism of our age. “We must rebel That is why Death of God theology, pro- against the father, and against every- claiming the emancipatory Good News, thing for which the father is a symbol: can be treated as remaining faithful to the past, tradition, authority as coercive, the Gospel.

LOGOS 106 41 2021 SAUSIS • KOVAS Algirdas Fediajevas

Conclusions

The article has revealed Death of means the negation of the transcendent God theology to be an emancipatory God and of any kind of immediate way of thinking. Resting upon the ideas givenness while not falling into an ahis- that the contemporary world has come torical transcendent shell (God or indi- of age, that Christianity is able to be re- viduality): such aspects leave human ligionless, and that historicity is one of being only in the immanent sphere, pro- the main elements of Christianity (Chris- vide freedom and self-responsibility. If tian message is never separate from cul- the contemporary cultural situation is ture and historicity), Death of God theo- seen as the one which paralyzes any logians claim that the essence of Chris- possibilities of emancipatory thinking, tianity is emancipatory. It is because of Death of God theology proclaims the orientation towards the future and proc- negation of this situation without re- lamation of the Kingdom of God – ab- turning to the previous forms of culture solutely new reality. Emancipation and without escaping to ahistoricity.

References

Altizer Thomas J. J. 1966b. The Gospel of Christian Leavitt Pearl J., Rodkey Cristopher D. 2018. Thomas Atheism. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. J. J. Altizer, Rodkey C. D., Miller J. E (ed.). The Altizer Thomas J. J. 2002. The New Gospel of Christian Palgrave Handbook of Radical Theology. 55–81. Atheism. Aurora: The Davies Group Publishers. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Altizer Thomas J. J. 2012. The Call to Radical Theology. Long Eugene Thomas. 1999. Quest for Transcen- Albany: State University of New York Press. dence, International Journal for Philosophy of Re- Altizer Thomas J. J., Hamilton William. 1966a. ligion 45(1): 51–65. Radical Theology and the Death of God. Indianap- Lyas Collin. 1970. On the Coherence of Christian olis: The Bobbs-Merrill Co. Atheism, Philosophy 171 (45): 1–19. Badiou Alain. 2002. Ethics: An Essay On The Under- Prozesky Martin. 1981. Karl Barth and the Death- standing of Evil. Translated from French by of-God School, Theoria: A Journal of Social and P. Hallward. London, New York: Verso. Political Theory 57: 39–50. Badiou Alain. 2013. Being and Event. Translated Robbins Jeffrey W., Crockett Clayton. 2015. A from French by O. Feltham. London, New York: Radical Theology for Future: Five Theses, Pal- Bloomsbury. grave Communications 1: 1–10. Bonhoeffer Dietrich. 1959. Prisoner for God: Letters Tracy David. 2000. The Post-Modern Re-Naming and Papers from Prison. Translated by Reginald of God as Incomprehensible and Hidden, Cross- H. Fuller. New York: The Macmillan Company. Currents 50 (1/2): 240–247. Hamilton William. 1966b. The New Essence of Chris- Vahanian Gabriel. 1961. The Death of God: The Cul- tianity. New York: Association Press. ture of our Post-Christian Era. New York: George Hegel George Wilhelm Friedrich. 2010. The Science Braziller. of Logic. Translated from German by George di Van Buren Paul M. 1969. The Secular Meaning of the Giovanni. Cambridge: Cambridge University Gospel: Based on an Analysis of its Language. Lon- Press. don: Collier–Macmillan Limited.

Endnotes

1 This project has received funding from the Eu- K-712-01-0085) under a grant agreement with ropean Social Fund (project No 09.3.3-LMT- the Research Council of Lithuania (LMTLT).

42 LOGOS 106 2021 SAUSIS • KOVAS