The thoughtful reader must be perplexed by the frequent use of such terms as post-Reformation, post-Protestant, and post-Christian as they are used as designations of our times. This usage is indicative of certain types of perspective which the evangelical should be able to recognize if he is to understand what is occurring in the thought-world of the church today. It is proposed to note here some of the pluses and minuses of the trend toward viewing our day in terms of these “posts.”
To designate a period of time as coming to an end, so that another epoch can be distinguished as supplanting it, is to show a keen sense for history and for historical placement. That this is a relatively modern tendency is clear to those who study history, for our familiar divisions of history into such periods as ancient, medieval, and modern reflect something which has been judged well after history has hardened.
Along with indicating a sense of history and of historical context, the designation of epochs “on the spot” reflects a strong tendency toward placing of value judgments upon historical periods. It is not usual for one who thus handles history to lament the passing of an era, and to view with regret the emergence of a post-era. At times, the one who thus judges seems rather to feel a sense of relief that an epoch is over and done with. In other words, this tendency may signify a lack of historical perspective, of perspective and of rootage. To a degree far greater than is generally recognized, history is a continuum; and those who fancy themselves to have generated a genuinely new epoch often succeed only in reviving an ancient error or a passing vagary.
To get down to cases: there are those who feel that we are now entering a post-Reformation or post-Protestant epoch. There is no agreed-upon elaboration of the exact form which Christianity would assume in a post-Protestant time. It might be a totally new doctrinal form; it might be, as a result of the acceptance of the extremely numerous adherents of the Orthodox communions into the World Council of Churches, a form of church-community which would have lost the characteristics of the modern non-Roman Christian movement.
A more radical form of “post movement” suggests that we are moving into an era which will be distinctly post-Christian. This mode of thought may stem from a number of concerns: it may operate in terms of William Ernest Hocking’s assertion that the day of “private and local religions is over” (The Coming World Civilization, page 80). This way of thinking assumes that anything which hopes to survive as religion in the new age must divest itself of any claim to uniqueness and to exclusivenes, and take its place among the religious manifestations of the universal human spirit. If this is what is meant by a “post-Christian world,” then it is time that those who regard themselves as evangelicals should know that this is an actual objective sought by a certain type of missionary endeavor. In all fairness, they have a right to know what they are asked to support, and should be permitted to decide whether such endeavor reflects their convictions or not.
Much is said in these times about the world coming of age. It is obvious that modern technological advance is altering both the face and the image of our world. What is not so clear is, whether a world which is “coming of age” demands a nonreligious outlook, and an essentially secularized theology. It should be noted that those who suggest that Christian supernaturalism has nothing to say to a world that has attained to adulthood are not propounding anything essentially new. A century ago, such thinkers as Auguste Comte and Ludwig Feuerbach felt that the idea of God was no longer useful as a working hypothesis in any area of human life.
What is difficult to understand is, that modern man, who teeters on the brink of annihilation, and whose ego has been bruised by the events which have unrolled in the West since 1914, should be so certain of his own capabilities. It would seem that two World Wars, and the brute empirical facts of Dachau and Buchenwald and of the slave-labor camps of Siberia, would bring thoughtful men to ponder again whether the message of the God of the Bible, revealed as Lord of history, might not have a genuine relevance.
What is really at issue is this: is the secularization of modern life which the alleged coming-of-age of the world has produced really a value? Does intellectual honesty demand it? Can men of reflection point with pride to it? Is it really a discarding of all idolatries? Or is the modern secularization of life in itself an ambitious and grotesque program of massive idolatry?
This is not the place to discuss the details of the thought of Rudolf Bultmann, with his general denial of classical Christian supernaturalism. It is probable that his de-objectifying of the New Testament message will have its day and run its course. His tolerance of one once-for-all Divine event (i.e., the Death and Resurrection of Christ) hardly constitutes a basis for a vital kerygma.
It is significant that formulations of a so-called post-Bultmann theological, of which that of Schubert M. Ogden may be regarded as typical, lead in the direction of a “liberation” of Christian theology from any appeal to any act of God. This is based on the assumption that man’s universal and general position before God forms an adequate basis for an “authentic existence.”
“What shall we say then?” The contemporary desire for a tidy systematization of history into identifiable and label-able epochs is, seen from one point of view, an expression of a deep tendency in man to bring order and system into the whole of life. Man’s historical sense stands on good ground, and we rejoice to see it at work. One is made to wonder, however, whether its legitimate limits are not being passed when too many thinkers stand at their own personal junction of time, and hang up their parochial sign “Under New Management” at the portals of the future.
HAROLD B. KUHN
